And this is the second lecture of the day of December the 19th.

And this is December the 19th, the first lecture of the day.

I'm going to go over with you now, a little bit more on auditing patter. I talked about it today; gave you a new little process in the bargain.

Want to talk to you today about SOP 8-C some more and I want to talk to you about uses of. There is a couple of minor things here that aren't in this brief form for student use. They will be in the finished copy and probably those people listening to this tape later will find them in the finished copy, but that's beside the point.

The auditor does well, when he is processing, to get communication from the preclear; and he does not at all when he fails to do so.

The — symbolization, of course, is where you put the person's name, and that's under Step VI. You use his name, you shift his name around and double-terminal it and match it until he can handle his name. And under Step V, of course, you handle terminals, as well as that data given in this earliest form. That will be in later forms.

A preclear is not very communicative, and unless an auditor keeps him communicating, the preclear sooner or later is going to lapse off.

Now, when you look at SOP 8-C in its final form — not its final form, but in its complete form of all the Logics and Axioms that go back of it — why, a great deal of additional use will come to you who know theory and can practice it; additional uses will occur to you, many additional uses. And — because out of these Axioms and out of these Logics and so forth, we can get an enormous number of processes. Now, what we've tried to do here is get the most effective and easiest to use processes — that's been the main thing. Also, in — under Step I, by Location, of course granting beingness is also under that.

Now, we get all sorts of problems with regard to communication. The first and most obvious thing is the lag. This means that too many things have entered into the line.

The first experience of beingness — you see beingness isn't space, but the first approximation of it, in terms of the mest universe, is space. You see, the word beingness is bigger than space and it has more to it than space. But in terms of the mest universe, the first expression of it, in mest terms, is space. And when an individual encounters space, he interprets space as beingness. This is not necessarily correct or right or anything else, it's just what he interprets in human experience. So that if you are trying to deny somebody space, you are actually trying to deny him beingness. You see that?

Now, whenever you get into mest communication, you get into a lag. You get — well, Q and A. You get the positive — the statement — the causative statement which is followed, then, by the effect. And when there's a big distance between these two points — if one is bogged into mest, he thinks it takes a long time to get between those two distances. If one is involved solely with thought, however, it takes zero time. Time does not enter into communication. Actually, time enters into communication only as much as one enters MEST into communication. So it tells you how (quote) "bogged down" a preclear is at any time: How slowly he communicates. Bogged down — that's how much mest has he got in him? How much mest is between him and it?

When you try to deny somebody communication, you try to deny him beingness. When you want to deny somebody beingness, you deny him space, and so on and so on and so on. Hence jails — I mean, the police deny somebody beingness by putting him in a constricted space which is fixed. In order to deny somebody beingness, it's really only necessary to upset his mobility. If you upset somebody's mobility, of course he cannot shift his viewpoint — he thinks. So, unable to shift his viewpoint, why, he is constricted in space.

Now, let's take up here — we've had Step Ia, the patter — you know pretty well what it is, discussed it on earlier tapes. And let's go here to Step IIa, and we say, "Mock up and unmock own body in room until perception betters." Well, that's handling bodies.

Now, the beingness of an individual is then suppressed by the number of anchor points which are close to him, which aren't put there by his own deter­mination. Now, we've got self-determinism and other-determinism. He can put as many anchor points close to him as he wants to; under his own self-determinism, it won't upset his beingness at all. But if anchor points are forced upon him without his choice, which is to say, if he resists this "forced upon him-ness" of the other anchor points, why, his beingness is reduced. And actually, if anchor points which he has determined will be in one place are shifted, either closer to or further away, you get an alteration in his space which upsets again his concept of beingness.

Well, you must realize that an individual gets out of his body with difficulty in exact ratio to the amount of mest he has entered into the idea. See? Commu­nication is as slow as one has entered mest into it. Therefore, one can space terminals as well as he takes mest out of the problem.

Now, the — it's much worse to be ridiculed than to be betrayed. If some­body is betrayed, it must have been assumed immediately before the betrayal that he was powerful enough to merit betrayal. You see that? He had to have some power in order to be betrayed.

Now, let me give you a very quick example of this: I have had, organiza­tionally, from time to time (mostly because the people available simply weren't doing their job or they had something else in mind), I have had difficulty sometimes in getting adequate material out on Dianetics and Scientology. So I sat down one day and studied this problem of communication just from that angle — how am I going to get more material out and get it out better? And I studied the number of steps that it took for me to write something and for it to arrive in hands, even of staff. And I found out there were a lot of steps there.

But ridicule is quite something else. Ridicule says that he mustn't have any power; he didn't have any power and so on. So therefore, pulling out anchor points away from him which he is determined should remain in close, results in a drop of beingness. Because one fights their going away and — in other words, he's fighting space itself. Because, of course, as they go away, they make increasing space. So he gets to fighting increasing space.

I would, let us say, put it on a dictation machine or type it on a typewriter and hand it over to somebody to duplicate on a stencil. And then this duplicator — this stencil was put on a duplicator and the duplicator was run through, and then the material was collated and then it was passed out to people.

Well, if he fights increasing space, then his — the lesser of two evils will be decreasing space. The truth of the matter is, you see, without an inversion, increasing space simply gives somebody more beingness, in terms of the MEST universe. But by the time it gets inverted, when other-determinism has insisted upon his having wider space, that is in effect, ridicule, because it's saying, "Look, you can't occupy this much space. Nyah, nyah, nyah!"And the fellow agrees to it and says he can't, by pulling back from that much space. So ridicule does not grant power to an individual. People who are ridiculed are immediately assumed to be weak, and then they are ridiculed.

That was just the staff. I said, "All right, let's take some mest out of the line and get some information out. Now, where are we going to take mest out of the line? Well, we evidently have to take a step out here someplace."

So ridicule is much the worse of the two. So much so, that individuals who are hooked into the betrayal circuit are very often completely neglective of the subject of ridicule. An individual who is without space won't even consider ridicule, he will just neglect it — and it's much, much more aberrative than betrayal. Although betrayal — the end-all of betrayal, of course, is to become completely nothing in terms of size or beingness or anything else.

So I bought myself a big stack of stencils and ran them into the front of a typewriter. And we had a stencil then, and all we needed to do was run the duplicator, that was all. And yet, I found it was difficult for people to run the dupli­cator, so I got a duplicator. And I was actually, for a while there, operating just like this. And we had lots of information and lots of this and that during that period.

And yet he will concentrate on betrayal in his auditing, in running — say if he were running himself, he would do nothing but concentrate on betrayal. Just nothing but betrayal — betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. And never occur to him that ridicule was what would really start turning on the works.

I would put stuff — compose it onto the stencil. Sometimes people would say, "Well, this isn't well proofwritten — look, there's some commas out of shape." Commas — you know, terribly important things! I mean, gee, how's anybody ever get along without a comma! Uhh! Shades of Korzybski.

You get an individual who is solidly ridged, who is very, very packed down, who is packed tight — he's been patted in place by the forces of all until he is practically solid plutonium, but he won't explode. And there he is, terribly small in terms of existence — you know, in actual beingness — but big in terms of energy. Not even in energy, that's again the wrong phrase — matter — because he isn't very energetic when this happens to him. And here he is, packed down tight.

Anyway, you can't worth a nickel compose on a stencil and proofread them at the same time. It's quite a trick. You'd have to put them back into the machine again, and usually when you put them back into the machine again they don't line up quite, you know, and they overstrike and understrike and so forth. And the whole lineup was just trying to take time and mest in general out of the comm line. So I'd just throw them onto the stencil. And then when I got them off of the stencil, I'd throw a wad of paper on this duplicator and pin the stencil onto the duplicator sheet, just turned around a couple of times till it sat right, and then let it roll. And sit down at the typewriter and get out the next stencil while it was pocking off, see?

Well, now this individual of course has to have space. Space is something to him that water is to a thirsty horse. But a horse, theoretically, could get so thirsty that he won't drink. And so this fellow is so thirsty for space he won't drink. And he fights away from further space because he has been unable for so long to impose any space between terminals; so long he's been unable to do this, that he doesn't consider it can be done.

And what do you know, it wasn't anybody could stop the communication line. People started going frantic — there were several people resigned from the organization. (audience laughter) That's right! You think I'm exaggerating. There was just too much communication there, too suddenly, and it drove several people frantic.

Quite in addition to that, he is terrified of ridicule. That's the one thing he mustn't have. And ridicule is the im, and is the emotional — in the emotional band, is imposing too much space on somebody. That's ridicule.

Well now, compare this to a few months earlier: I had written a bulletin on how you give an intensive process and why people spin under processing. We'd found — and you could use this as a datum, by the way, I'll just give it to you in passing — that this was the condition under which an individual had been worsened while being processed. These conditions, one or more of them existed, if a case became worse during processing.

You could throw some criminal down in the middle of the Great Salt Lake Desert and you could say, "Now there you are, operate your syndicate here." Now, it would finish him being a criminal. Of course, police aren't this smart. That's why they're police. They give a fellow a small place, and this fellow already is on the inversion, and so they put him in the cell which actually tends to confirm his criminality.

One: The processing was done too late at night.

If they really wanted to get rid of crime, what they would do, would be to take one of the large Western states that's kind of going to ruin, and just dump criminals in there. Put barbwire all the way around it — more space than anybody could possibly employ, you see. And they just keep dumping criminals in there — and those boys would have to measure up or otherwise. Because they're fond of being betrayed, criminals are, but they sure can't stand being ridiculed.

Two: There were too many auditors on the case.

If newspaper reporters, for instance, in writing about gangsters who were shot down and big murderers and that sort of thing, were to put it in the comic section, the decline of crime would be rapid. But they don't, they put it on the front page. They say, "Pretty Boy Floyd Triumphs Again." Yes — big importance, big importance.

Three: The preclear was hungry — too hungry, bad diet.

As a matter of fact, the thirst for betrayal is such that it can turn a man to crime just so that he will be betraying and be betrayed. The story of man is a story of betrayal. But the important story that runs through that is the story of ridicule. And between the two things, why, man — man is at his best with betrayal — I mean, Homo sapiens, average line of.

And four, which really sums up to the earlier one: The preclear was not getting enough rest.

This is where he gets in there and pitches, one way or the other. He starts thinking about betrayal. It's — somebody raises up a standard and said, "I have been betrayed. I am really the king of Bavaria and I was betrayed." And more people will rally to that standard, because they're brothers, you see, and they've all been betrayed and so they've got to go betray somebody.

And the last one: The preclear was suddenly deluged with environmental problems, such as divorce or something like that, just hitting him in the middle of processing.

And in terms of mest, this is worked out — you see, thought is above MEST, but in terms of MEST, this is worked out so that people are always readjusting space. And life is a sort of a hectic contest of readjusting anchor points. Out they go and in they go and around they go and out they go and in they go and around and round and round and round. There are anchor points which you have to have close to you and anchor points which mustn't be close to you; and anchor points which must be put away from me but won't go away; and anchor points which won't come close to you but have to come close to you; and anchor points which insist on being close to you when they ought to be in back of you; and this round-round-round-round-round-round. If you'd get down to worry, it's this interchange of energy caused by misplaced anchor points.

And we found out that these conditions were the conditions which attended — practically all of them attended — every break we had in terms of processing, and we were processing some terribly bad-off people at the time in Elizabeth. And nearly every one of these conditions was disobeyed on any case which had gotten into severe difficulty because of processing. All right.

If you were just to say to a preclear, "Now put all your anchor points where they ought to be," if he understood the meaning of that single word anchor point, he could have a picnic then for a long time. "Now, put them all where they're supposed to be," and it's the first thing he'd tell you — he can't.

I wrote a bulletin on this, and also described how you gave the thirty-six hour intensive run — what you hit for and what you did. And it was about — typed up, oh, I imagine, it was about five or six pages; and it gave this material and other material, and it was a good rundown. Actually, it was the forerunner of that Standard Operating Procedure which came out in an early bulletin following Book One. I believe it was released in about July of 1950.

"You put these terminals where they're supposed to be . . ." Terminal and anchor point — a terminal, you know, is just a massive anchor point. And you get — round and round, I mean, he'd go.

And many, many weeks went by, and I asked one day an auditor — his preclear looked a little bit dazed and I said to the auditor, "That preclear doesn't look like he had sleep. Haven't you read the bulletin on this subject?" And, "You're not supposed to process this fellow, he looks like he's dog-tired."

He — a person who starts self-auditing is just trying to adjust anchor points. I mean, he's trying to pull them in and push them out and do this and do that with them. And of course, he isn't going to get very far because the one anchor point he won't look at to process is the anchor point that should be processed. Furthermore, he'll always insist on using heavy techniques when he ought to use light ones. And where he ought to use a heavy one, he'll use a light one. He is reversed on the subject. And quite in addition to that, all he does is process, ordinarily, the GE, which is fun. We're not interested in processing the GE, because it doesn't happen to result in any great improvement on the part of the individual.

"Well, aren't you supposed to process people when they're tired?"

There are certain concepts which an individual can get. He can always increase his knowingness and therefore increase his beingness — always. And therefore, educationally, an individual can self-audit himself, so to speak. He can find something out, or know something more, or suddenly know some untruth was untrue or something like that, and therefore, educationally, he'll do a tremendous springboard. But when he starts operating on his own beingness, he's liable to be busy taking out his appendix when he ought to be sawing that arrowhead out of his temple. He won't look at the arrowhead in the temple, you see, because that's too obvious to anybody else and it's not obvious to him.

"No."

Now, another thing, an auditor will very often fail to audit out of a preclear what ought to be audited out of the preclear but insists on auditing out of the preclear what ought to be audited out of the auditor.

"Well, I never read about that anyplace."

Now, a test made in this, whereby several co-auditing teams which had failed had been accumulated in one area — Volney Mathison made this test. And he got several pairs of Dianeticists who were failed auditing teams, and he put the auditor on one E-Meter and the preclear on another E-Meter and didn't let them look at either E-Meter, and then started going over what the auditor had audited on the preclear. There was no registry on the preclear — preclear's E-Meter just sat there — and the auditor's E-Meter went wild. And a little further questioning of the auditor demonstrated that he'd been handing the preclear his case. Of course, this is merely an effort to duplicate.

And I said, "Haven't you received an intensive run bulletin — how do you give an intensive run?"

So, for Homo sapiens to co-audit, it's necessary to get something that is wrong with everybody, in order to permit everybody to duplicate. If they're going to do it on stimulus-response basis, that permits them then to duplicate what's wrong with them on the preclear and have it solve the preclear's case, which is the reason and the need for the highest common denominator in auditing. And this works out very, very smoothly. On a technique where you have somebody using Location — well, Location, that's adjustment of anchor points, getting somebody to adjust his anchor points. And as these things come along, everybody needs his anchor points adjusted, so an auditor will go in for this with great enthusiasm. He knows his anchor points need adjusting and he can duplicate it on the preclear.

"No."

Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to you people that are coming on up the line, but it certainly does apply when this material is being far more generally used.

So I went around and I asked a couple of other guys if they'd received it. And it was sitting in the manager's safe in its original form because it was too valuable to be duplicated. He couldn't trust it to the secretary, you see. Now, that's what he told me; that's wonderful, isn't it?

We have, however, failures along this line. You take techniques just a little earlier, they weren't quite generalized enough in their — that is to say, they didn't apply to every case. There were several techniques you could use, you see, and they didn't apply to every case, so this wasn't quite high enough common denominator.

So anyway, we were taking him out of the communication line amongst other people.

And auditors would go sideways off the techniques and they'd do such things as, they would say ... I got a report the other day here from somebody in Great Britain who had done this: He was showing the preclear his facsimiles and having the preclear show him the preclear's facsimiles. Ha, ha, ha — you see, that's very nice. That won't upset a preclear very much, you know, because the main sorrow of his life is that they have ceased to be visible to other people — let's just key him in but good!

So many times horrible things would occur businesswise around, and you say, "My God, there's — material has gone out on that. The formula with which that's supposed to operate has already been released, everything is squared around on that." No, never been put around anyplace.

That's why you never tell a preclear that you're seeing his facsimiles and he's never telling you, because you'll get him set on this thing of visibility of what he's doing. And he has become so sad about being invisible that he has decided "to be invisible" is the thing to be, and he wants to remain invisible and he'll get terribly upset if you talk about visibility.

So, for processing and business alike, the stuff was running — and as I said, people resigned from the organization. People just left in all directions on the business line. And not because I was being nasty about it, but simply because bulletins and material and lists of names and things like that would appear on people's desks — because I went around afterwards and dropped them on people's desks. It was deadly, utterly deadly. It knocked practically all the chaff out of the early organization. Didn't knock it out quite soon enough, but it knocked it out. Because they couldn't stand the idea of fast communication. There wasn't anything wrong with this communication, it was just routine, you see, but they couldn't stand fast communication.

If you were to take a little kid, for instance, and he was telling you — you say, "Well now, imagine yourself eating some candy. Now get a picture of yourself eating some candy." And then you say to him, "Oh no! Not that piece. Don't pick up that piece." You know, you can turn his mock-ups off for a day or two — just boom! You know? Start directing him in mock-ups? Oh no!

You'll find that an individual — well, let's take Johnny Q. Public out here — he thinks this book is a good book because it took seven years to write it. No, I can tell you right away that's a lousy book. It took seven years to write it. That clunk! I mean, the fellow never got wound up. He obviously never did get wound up; never got started.

So he doesn't want to be directed that way. Art criticism can go too far. Of course, it's gone too far — when a fellow becomes an art critic, it's already gone too far.

"Gee," the public would say, "gee, what would happen if he'd had fifteen years to write it?" I can tell you what'd happen — nothing. It never would have gotten written.

I'm reminded of — this also goes into just that, art criticism — I'm reminded of Kipling's rather interesting poem, ballad. It goes along: And when they work on the great canvas and so on — after death in heaven, why, they'll be painting this great canvas and after a while, why, the Devil will walk up and take a look at it and he will say, "It's pretty, but is it art?"

Now, there's many a book kicking around — I could name several notable examples — which are kicking around as classic literature merely because they took thirty-five years to write or seventeen years to write or something like that. And these books are terrible! I mean, they don't even vaguely compare with anything.

In such a wise, man gets very upset about things which are seen — if man already is having difficulty with criticism. Of course, criticism is the tiniest, lowest level, you might say, of invalidation. And invalidation is the thought level of being hit — or being hit is the MEST level of invalidation. And criticism — about the lightest concept that you can get on the bank is not wanting to be critical. This is pretty low. Everybody does it.

Communication speed — it's not that I'm sold on communication speed, it's just — I'm just pointing up here a fairly fast size-up on a case. How much mest has he got between him and the communication he's trying to put out? How much mest has he interposed? Because he's interposed in exact ratio to the amount of time he thinks he's stretched over.

Well, now let's look at the variations of Step Ia, and we find out that what we're doing here is actually direct differentiation in terms of getting more space between anchor points. See that? Direct differentiation.

Now, some people think they're stretched over a fifteenth of a second and some people think they're stretched over a couple of minutes. And some people who are real bad-off think they're living simultaneously in a couple of hours. That's right, only they're in the sanitarium.

Now, differentiation could be said to be that process which imposes space between two anchor points — two or more anchor points. That's differentiation. Identification is that process which takes space out from between anchor points. When things become more and more similar, one has less and less space, you might say. Or something is simply duplicated all over the place when they're more and more similar.

Now, there's communication lag, and that's what you're looking at when you look at a case.

Well, we look this over and we find that we have, in all of the processes, differentiation as a goal. An individual is supposed to get things better differ­entiated. So let's take a method of just variation on this: We ask the preclear for places where he's not in present, and where not in the past, and where he isn't in the future. And where others are not in the present and past and future; and where objects are not in the present, past and future; where pc is not thinking in the present, past and future.

Well, all right, you're also looking at a body here with Step IIa. Well, that's made out of mest. And we were talking about the genetic entity today. Well, when you get something that's that much effect and depends that much on applause, in the form of food, you're going to get a big communication lag — real big lag.

Well, let's just get a variation on this, and we find out that we can get him something like this: Let's take it real close to home, see? Let's take it on identifi­cation. Now, when you're asking him where things are not, you're asking him for wider space. And sometimes you won't find a case entering on this level. He can't differentiate that well on this particular subject. He has a nondifferentiation about something or other, and the way you'd get a nondifferentiation would be to take it right close to home. "Give me three people you are not."

This process of stepping somebody out of the back of his head is just that kind of a thing. You're — he can step out of the back of his head as much as he doesn't have any mest on his communication line. I mean, these two things are proportional. He has as much difficulty in stepping out of the back of his head, you see — this is a rough proportion, this is not a straight law — as much difficulty there as he has comm lag.

See, this is — this is what? This is treating a possible identification. It doesn't say that the person is these people, but it just makes him differentiate by saying they're not right here in this spot. And therefore, not being here in this spot, they must be different. A differentness, then, is not being on this spot. A thing is different from another thing when it doesn't occupy the same space. Now, that is the first differentness. And differentiation in terms of thought in an individual who is straining at agreement with the mest universe, comes about in terms of getting things a little further apart, which gives him more space.

Well, now if he gets his comm lag down to practically zero, why, he'll step out of the back of his head. Well, he's got as much comm lag as he has energy.

So we work with this: "Give me three people that you are not." Now, you run a bracket on such a thing. You would just go on this process like this: You'd say, "All right, give me three people you're not. All right. Give me three other people you're not."

Now, we're talking more crudely. It is exactly proportional. The amount of mest the fellow has on the communication line is the difficulty which he is having in communication, since all communication is supposed to be instantaneous and he's having that much worry about being cause and effect, and about distance and about, everything else. He's having this much difficulty. How much mest has he got on the communication line? Okay.

You're not talking about past, present or future, you see. Don't run that differentiation in on him; because you see, when the present and past and future have collapsed, you again have time becoming a single terminal. You know, they've sort of collapsed, and time is identified. And to every preclear, he has some periods of time identified. He has the past identified with the future in "it mustn't happen again"; see, he's — right away when he says, "It mustn't happen again," he has the past identified with the future. And your effort to get these things apart is directed toward any barrier. So we get all the barriers there are, you see, as barriers which we're trying to make separate.

Because it is to that degree (that he has mest on the communication line) that he believes that he himself is a piece of energy. His communication lag is as great as he believes that he himself is a piece of mest. And the slower his communication lag is, the bigger the piece of mest he thinks he is.

And we have immediately the two fundamentals. We have the reactive mind — A = A = A = A. The reactive mind is totally identified and therefore you get stimulus-response. And when you get total identification and stimulus-response operation and so forth, you of course get insanity. The GE is nuts. I mean, that's — you might say that was a qualified way of saying, "Well, is he enough to be crazy?" That's about the only way you could qualify it, because he is, essentially — the GE and the form itself, if you start to take it apart, you find out that it's very obsessive. It thinks it has to have attention from others to the point where it doesn't live unless it consumes other energy. That's real interesting, isn't it? Well, by our own definitions, that demonstrates a pretty low level of operation.

Well, now how many techniques are there to resolve this? How many processes to resolve this?

All right. He has to continue to make identifications with other animals and other things in terms of eating. Well, now when somebody is too terribly identified with a GE, we'll just give him a level of processing which will spring him out of his identification with the GE right where it's worst — which, of course, is eating!

Well, the reason Step IIa is sitting there and the reason Step II of SOP 8 is sitting there the way it is, is simply because in the process of processing we have found out that that, to a large degree, belongs there as the next two: "Be three feet back of your head," he can't be; the next thing you would do in SOP 8 would be to say, "All right. Mock up your body in front of you and now step out of it." Well, this is elementary.

And so you'd start him off on, "Give me three people you're not, and three more people you're not," and — you know, get him into the swing of the thing and so forth.

But here in SOP 8-C we go a bit further into this, and we find out that the body — the amount he believes he is a body — has a great deal to do with his ability to step out of his body. And he believes he's a body to the degree that he believes that he is matter. It isn't that he believes he is a body, so he is matter. This is different than that. He has the same difficulty of getting out of the body as he believes that he himself has mass. We don't care whether he thinks he's the body or doesn't think he's the body, that happens to follow as an accidental result. The more mass he has, the more likely he is to think he's a body, but this is incidental.

"Now give me three animals you're not. Now, three more animals you're not, and three more animals you're not. Now give me three people who are not you, and three more people who are not you. Now give me three more people who are not you. Three more people who are not you. Now give me three people who are not other people."

What we're interested in is, as always throughout these processes, we're interested in a thetan. And the thetan has a communication lag as great as he thinks he is himself mest. So there you are. He isn't something that's causative or creative, he believes he is mest. So he's effect. Now how much of an effect can he get? mest. That's effect — it's total effect.

And he's liable to flub that one. He's liable to answer that one, "Well, Joe and Bill and Toosie."

If you don't believe it, go around and hit a wall and stand there and wait for it to hit back — it never will. Go around and slug some space, it won't ever hit back. It's only when you set it up in some combination of accident, for instance, so that you hit a wall and the roof falls on you. See, you'd have to kind of set that up, or not notice it's set up that way, in order to have mest hit back. But it uses no volition.

And you say, "Joe, Bill and Toosie what?"

So the difference being an effect and being at cause — being pure cause is being total volition and being an effect is being no volition — total no volition. And then you've got mest. mest can be made to look like it has volition, as in an explosion. That's why a thetan worships an explosion. If he worships anything, it's an explosion he worships. So it looks like it has volition.

"Oh," he says, "uh — they're — they're not other people."

Now, engineers and many others and other religionists, other people in other cults, worship lightning. And back in the days of Jove, when people were leaping full-armed from the brow of Jove — they had to stop that, it was giving him a headache, I think — anyway, they worshiped lightning. And man has never really stopped worshiping lightning.

"Look, what other people aren't they?" That's what you want to know on that.

People down in Greece, for instance, they worshiped amber and it looked like lightning. Electra — it generates electricity and so forth.

"Well, let's see . . ." Oh, well, this will put a big strain on the brain. He'll say, "Let's see now, mmmm-hmmm-mmmm-hmmmmmmm. Let me see. Let's see, Joe isn't — Joe isn't Agnes. Ha-ha!" Fooled you, he really thought of it.

It got them into endless trouble in South America because the Inca has a worship of gold — had a worship of gold. And the Spaniards came down there and — it's just because gold has some resemblance to lightning and because it's bright and so forth. This is a worship of energy. And that is carried forward today, and there is a church up to the north here known as General Electric; that's carried along in that church. And there's another cult, there's a communication cult — its god is Mercury, I think; it's named Bell Laboratories, and they have a goddess in there called Ma Bell.

See, he'll come up like that and then so on, and then, "Bill isn't — ummm-mmm-mmm-mmm, he . . ." Gee, is he at all? is what's going through his mind, you see — real, real dim.

And there — it's a — well, I don't mean to turn this off into strange religious practices, but these people do worship lightning. You can't get away from that. If you've ever watched an engineer drooling over his valves and test tubes and wondering just how much inductance to put into what resistance, we get this beautiful picture of the worship of lightning.

And then the next thing you know, why, "He isn't my top sergeant I had during the war. Yeah, that's right. And Toosie? Well, would it count if I said he wasn't a dog I know?"

Well, that's a communication lag any way you look at it — it has a finite speed. And anytime you get anything pinned down into mest, it gets a finite speed and that finite speed is c. And we're not quite sure what c is since it has to be evaluated by itself. C is 186,000 miles as — per second or something like that, but it takes something — some mechanical means to tell you what a second is, and that mechanical means is in terms of motion. So we come around to find out that light is moving in terms of moving light. And that's very hard to figure out, but they manage to get complicated about it in some formulas.

And you say, "No, we want a person."

You understand, I mean that very clearly: How can you say c is 186,000 miles per second and then compare it to anything, if that thing to which it is being compared is the second, which of course it makes. You see, it — you — no clock will wind or run or do anything else unless you apply motion to it, and you're measuring motion versus motion.

"(gasp)"

It takes so long, somebody says, for this particle to get from A to B in space, and that is c. Well, that's all very well. But you know, if you didn't have a clock running at the same time, it'd take forever, wouldn't it? I mean, there's just no comparative link here.

You're liable to get into a quarrel with your preclear anywhere along with this, because the preclear is going to complain and is going to get upset and is going to insist upon this and that. And he's going to insist that he's running out of names. Now, that one you want to look at. Want to be very, very interested in that one — he's running out of names. In other words, he's running out of easy looking. And as soon as he starts to run out of easy looking, he's got to do some harder looking.

It's like the fellows try to play the "only one" with the Hebrew god Yahweh. They say he's the only one. And well, how great is God? Well, he's as big as he is. And how small is he? Well, he's as small as he is. And you say, "Well, how mad is he?" He's as mad as he is.

And he's liable to have to look at the very person he mustn't look at. He's liable to look at the situation that he mustn't look at. And after you've gone just so far with any one — any part of this process of "who are you not," which is the identification part of Step Ia, why, just — you just go just so far on it, and he's going to run fresh out of material.

You see this — none of this runs on a double terminal, so they have to throw in the Devil in order to make enough commotion there to tell you how good God is. How good is he? Well, he's much better than the Devil. Right away you understand what that's all about. Very simple.

Well, that isn't the time for you to quit! It's just like in the old days, running an engram up into boredom wasn't good enough. You have to keep running it until he comes all the way up. Because you've just gotten on the hot spot right there. You're just entering the door of where you want to go, the moment that he sticks on names. Soon as he starts to run out of places, why then you start bearing down. You start being very casually insistent on even more places and more people and more differentiation in this wise. And you just keep on asking for it, and he gets into a very desperate state sometimes. But then all of a sudden, why, he's perfectly on it, he'll. . .

Now, when we go into all of our problems of reason, we have to go into dichotomies. And that whole business of the dichotomy is really these two terminals, which is the single unit of this universe, which is a unit of two. And that, in essence, is a communication line, isn't it? So the first terminal can be A and the second terminal B. Or the first terminal can be cause and the second terminal effect. And then the second terminal can be cause and the first terminal effect. And then the first terminal can be cause, and the second terminal effect. And so we get an electric current going zippity-zap, zippity-zap, zippity-zap. And we have a generation taking place, and it moves in proportion to the amount of space which is moved between the two terminals. You could take these two terminals and move them at each other. And move one — move the first terminal at the second terminal, you see, and then pull it back into place; and move the second terminal at the first terminal and pull it back into place. Every time one was cause, you would move it. And if you had two massive terminals there, you would get, whether you liked it or not, an electrical current with the application of this mechanical motion.

He's been giving you one reply every minute or something like that — way slow. I mean, his response was all right at first and then it got slower and slower and slower and slower and slower, and then he just — once every minute or something like that.

Mechanical motion then boils down to the ability to impose space, and that's all mechanical motion is. All right.

And after he's done this for a little while, you know, if you keep at it, why, his response will speed up and he starts going, "Well, and Bill isn't Joe and sab-dadabada-dada-dabada-dadada." He's got lots of names now. All of a sudden there's lots of people in the world. There's lots of places in the world. Now, you see why that is? The individual has run out of places he can look without having to look at something. And that's what he — why he's run out of places to look, because he's getting around too close.

When space gets imposed on a communication line for a thetan, he begins to believe he's stretched out or he's elongated or he has a certain size or that he has to pay a nickel in order to talk to somebody — dime now, in most cities. The goddess Ma Bell, there, is demanding a bigger tithe. Practically everybody pays tribute to that temple, by the way. It is one of the more famous temples. It has sub temples all over towns and people go in there and they worship; they pay a dime and worship a few minutes. And they insist they can't communicate any other way than on a piece of copper wire with some electrons in it. That's kind of silly, but that's the way they do it. You'll have to become accustomed to the usages and customs of people here on Earth. They may be strange to you, but they — nevertheless, they do have these customs and believe in them thoroughly. And they think you're mad if you don't believe in them, which is their definition of madness.

You see, there is scarcity itself — and there is the entering wedge of scarcity, in terms of mest, is lack of places to look. So your patter would go on, then, "What three people aren't other people?" And they would have to be specific other people.

Now, when we go into the whole problem of communication and communi­cation lag, we're into the problem of stepping a thetan out of the back of his head.

Now, he'll try to deal in large classes of people. This is his specialty. Well, that is a superidentification. He'll say, "Well, Joe isn't a member of the Boy Scouts." That's great. That means that there's several million boys that Joe is not. In other words, he evidently has several million boys in one condensed unit called the Boy Scouts. This fellow was a Boy Scout, that puts him in a condensed unit and that classifies him. Man is wonderful at this. He thinks something classifies by assigning it to a group.

We say to this fellow, "Be three feet back of your head," and he goes chunk! and he's right where he is. What's his problem?

Science is so jammed down on identification, it thinks a datum is classified if it goes into chemistry. "Oh," he says, "that's a chemical datum" — that disposes of it. It's something like in the field of medicine — if they give a long Latin name to something that's incomprehensible, then they can understand it. It has nothing to do with it at all, but they have at least pulled it out by giving it a special label. So that, too, is a type of identification, isn't it?

Well, Mr. Anthony, it is like this — he thinks he's mass. And if you asked him real quick, he would get the weariest feeling at the thought of moving a mountain. You'd say, "All right. Now you get the idea now of taking that mountain over there and pushing it three feet further on." He wouldn't like that. You'd say, "Now get the idea of the pyramids. Now get the idea of picking up one of the pyramids and shoving it into another pyramid." He wouldn't like that.

It's a type of differentiation, actually, to give something a long label just so it could be differentiated from something else. They pulled it out of the general class of things. Science is at its best when it's differentiating one datum from another datum, and at its worst trying to form groups of data. They don't form groups of data.

No. His — he's chosen as his randomity, work and effort. And he's thinking, then, in order to avoid work and effort. And if his thinkingness is to avoid work and effort, he's going to, of course, avoid terminals. He can't have — take two terminals and pull them apart, like his head and the body, because he'd get — immediate resultant of energy. And if he has to have energy before he can move anything and the energy has to be exteriorwise, why, he cannot possibly be three feet back of his head. You see how this would be? There's nothing to that. It's just how much space can he impose between two terminals, he thinks. He makes that mistake himself, you don't make it for him.

The next thing you know, you have physics and chemistry both studying the same thing: nuclear physics. Only the electrons and atoms and molecules of the chemist today don't even vaguely resemble the atoms and molecules and electrons of the physicist today. And they don't argue about it; they're both — both have buried the hatchet on the subject. And you'll get a chemist saying blandly to the physicist, "Well, my structural picture operates for chemistry," and the physicist says, "And mine operates for physics, so let dogs live, you know, and we won't quarrel about this any further."

Well, he knows he can't hold two terminals apart, that's his problem. He can't hold two terminals apart, so he can't hold two terminals apart. So what? Does that really have anything to do with his being three feet back of his head? Well, not a darn thing, because a thetan doesn't have any mass. No mass. The thetan is not a terminal.

Truth of the matter is, they're wildly divergent. Well, certainly there's something wrong with physics if physics doesn't work in chemistry, and there's certainly something wrong in chemistry if chemistry — you see? There's something wrong over there. Physic — if you can't take a chemical atom and work with it in physics . .. Well, you mean that chemistry is now going to disobey all the laws of physics and physics is going to disobey all the laws of chemistry and they're both exact sciences? Huh! Hardly.

Well, how can't he be three feet back of his head? Well, he must be dragging something with him that is mass. That's what you immediately assume, and in practice it works out that way. He's carrying along an old Fac One body, or he has some clanking chains or something that he scared somebody with and thinks — still thinks he has to have around.

But yet they group a datum and lose it. They just group it, lose it, let it drop out of sight because it's part of a group.

In other words, he's got a lot of mass which he is salvaging. And he thinks he is that mass, and he has agreed with the mest universe, and agreed with the mest universe. The more he's agreed with the mest universe, the more he thinks he has to have something from an exterior source, and the less he believes that he can create it when he needs it. As a result, he's bogged down. So you ask him to be three back of his head and he can't be three feet back of his head.

Well, now that's what your preclear's been doing all of his time track, see? He's been saying, "This is I. This thing which associates with horses is I. This other piece of energy over here was you, and the world is therefore divided into three classes: I, which is one class; and you, which is another class; and them, which is another class. So, we have a world full of people and their names are I, you, and them. Now, how many other people are there in the world? There are no other people than those. There are just three groups, and it's the group of I and the group of you and the group of them."

You get the "yoyo effect" — he goes back of his head maybe and snaps back in again. And he goes back of his head and snaps in, and out and in and out and in and out and in. What's he doing?

And you'll find people talking like that. And they'll talk right along, they go right along talking, they — making sense to each other. And when you use English and when you use colloquial American, you have to use "they think that." You see, there's no other classification. The language itself is pauperized. There are only about six pronouns, and this is nowhere near enough — nowhere near enough. All right.

Well, if you didn't realize this factor about communication and mest, you might have a hard time doing it, unless you realized that he's trying to work with a problem of two terminals. And as he's trying to work with this problem of two terminals, he isn't a terminal; and there is where he — his logic breaks down. It only breaks down because he thinks he's a second terminal. If he's a second terminal, naturally there is energy and gravitic influences in terms of the body which are at work upon him, and sure they snap him back into his head. But this is just a matter of agreement with the mest universe.

There are — I think if you had maybe five or six hundred pronouns, it would possibly work out and people would know what they were talking about.

Well, now how good is his perception? His perception is as good as he knows he's him. That's how good he is. That's how good his perception is. Because if he thinks he's a terminal, of course, he thinks all perception will be done on the basis of being hit by particles. And that isn't the way a thetan perceives, you see? So he's in bad shape there.

Well, so that you — you're working, then, to unidentify somebody, and if you work this out, places where the preclear is not in the present, where he's not in the past and not in the future, of course, you'd have to go into where others are not in the present and not in the past and not in the future, too, you see? And that's that much of a bracket.

Furthermore, if he thinks he's mest, he becomes afraid to touch things, and so we get in immediately to reach and withdraw. And let me call your attention to that button, reach and withdraw. Formula H — the action of reaching and withdrawing, being the basic and native action of the thetan, when done in terms of processing, recovers material that is hitherto untouchable.

Now, theoretically, there's another part of the bracket — not necessarily used, but there is another part of the bracket there. It's "where others know others are not" in the present, the past and the future. See, "where others know others are not." "Now where does Bill know that George isn't?" But you're so far exceeding, at that point, the level of knowingness of your preclear, that you'd just bog him — if you could communicate the concept to him at all. He'd just get very boggy right at that point.

Reach and withdraw. You have people reach and withdraw for material, material reach and withdraw for him. And so we get — in all of the actions which the thetan is undertaking, we get him able to reach and withdraw, him able to take pictures of things or not take pictures of things; and we don't get a blessed thing which looks even vaguely like a valve or a rheostat or a resistor or a transistor or a biscuit — none of these things. He just doesn't look like an electrical gimmick. He isn't an electrical gimmick. He can create electrical gimmicks and he can create, better still, electricity.

Well, similarly, you're often going to get into a spot where you just simply ask, "All right, give me three places in this room where you're not."

But yeah, I can see somebody in public service saying, "Gee-whiz. Now let's see, how much could we cut down our coal consumption bill if we got this guy to (mumbling) so we could make a lot of money and pull in a lot of energy that we don't need." That's how they'd think, too. Anyway . . . That's the way they thought early on the track.

And the fellow says, "Oh . . ." Bog. See, boom!

So here we have this problem of mass versus mobility and you could — anybody knows that he who travels lightest, travels fastest. And in the case of a thetan it goes up to instantaneousness. He can travel instantaneously who isn't packing mass. But he travels as uninstantaneously as he's packing mass around — in other words, as he has mest entered into him.

Well, there's a lower level of operation. And incidentally this lower level of operation is one which you would also include in this step — it just doesn't happen to be here in this brief form, but it's in later forms. And that is just this problem of where others — "Who . . ." "Give me three people you aren't." See, that's asking him to push these terminals out just a little bit.

Well, so let's just get into this business of bodies, and after a thetan's been hanging around the universe for a while, don't think it was just bodies that made him believe he was mass. Distance was the first thing he confronted — it wasn't a lump of energy. He looked at distance and he says, "Oh, no!" And you'll run that on some preclear and that's just the reaction you get: "Distance? Huh-uh!"

"Now, give me three people who aren't you. Give me three people who aren't other people. And now give me . .." Of course, you see, we're dealing just a little bit more in significance and just a little bit more in terms of thought when we're dealing with "who you're not."

The body — he's got to have a body so it can cover distance, and the better mechanical transport systems occur on Earth — the better the transport systems, the more comfortable it is to have a body; otherwise, the body is a terrifically limited thing. It can only walk at about four miles an hour and it tires itself out fairly rapidly at that. It can only trot at about eight, and I think it — the world's record is about half that of a running horse. I mean, it's not much of a vehicle. But it's better than nothing, and so the fellow gets around in this vehicle.

And we get then, "Give me three objects that you're not. And three objects that are not you. And three objects that are not other objects." That's the next bracket, on objects.

Well, to the degree that it will cover distance, why, he's fairly satisfied with it, and he only begins to get impatient with it when he realizes he'd like to go up to the nearest star and find out what's going on. And then he starts thinking in terms of the amount of mass it would require to lift a ship with enough supplies of air and water. And the reaction engine computation of the amount of mass necessary to boot that ship forward demonstrates to you adequately that it would have to pick up mass en route.

And now, if you're dealing with identification, you'll find that the individual is pretty snarled up with a GE, if he isn't getting it fast — he's really snarled up. And so we've got to hit it where it hurts, which is eating. Because the GE is always trying to eat something. He's trying to identify himself with something else. As a matter of fact, if man's concourse was simply left to the GE, it would simply consist of everybody would eat everybody else, and that's all there is to it. I mean, that would be the end-all of existence, is everybody would eat everybody up. And your cannibal is either an unmonitored GE or the thetan that's degraded down to the level of the GE, so he just eats everybody up, and that's the way he runs. No other concept is possible there except devouring in order to get attention.

Furthermore, although I understand that his laws aren't effective beyond the stratosphere, there's a fellow by the name of Einstein passed some laws relating to the speed of light. And you get up to the speed of light, I understand, and you stop right there. And I hope that they don't hear about this out in the outer planets there, because they'd have to drop those speedometers off. Because these boys going two or three times the speed of light there, as they just start to travel, would be embarrassed if they knew they couldn't do that. And so somebody'd better inform them before they're embarrassed by having this discovered about themselves.

And, by the way, on that chart over there, you'll notice the Applause Scale. Well, eating belongs on the Applause Scale. It's just the lowest level of the Applause Scale. That's really enforcing people to give you attention. That's enforcing the fact that you get attention. So eating belongs on the Applause Scale.

But the point is that no amount of mass will solve the problem of distance. There's no sense in just getting more and more mass into the problem — I mean, that's the wrong thing to put in it. What you want to do is start taking mass out of it.

And therefore, you have to take into account in this Straightwire process, then, animals. Not even necessarily edible animals, because man has eaten the darnedest things all up and down the track. And let's just take into account, then, animals.

It's like communications. Now, you could use — just to show you how workable this is, because those laws which work in the field of theta also work in the field of mest if you look close enough. If you could go down to the telephone company and just start looking through their equipment, ready with a pair of snippers and a truck to carry away the trash, you know you could probably speed up the whole comm system of a city quite markedly just by throwing out relays and pieces of equipment.

"Now give me three animals you're not. Three other animals you're not. Now give me three animals that are not you. Three others that are not you." Get the difference between that. And that is the patter you use, it's just that: "Give me three animals you're not. And three animals that are not you. Now give me three animals that are not other animals."

Now, this is just a guess, I haven't looked at it lately. But the tremendous amount of mass interposed in such a system is wonderful — it's just wonderful to behold. And what you'd be trying to do would be to take time out of the system. The more time you could take out of the system, the less traffic you would have to handle. But people normally don't look at it in this way. The "traffic engineers" as they're laughingly called — they are people there who are hired by cities to keep the traffic in the streets as long as possible so the people can look at the automobiles. These fellows routinely and regularly do the most fabulous job of holding up traffic.

And boy, he'll get scattery. He'll consider fish or birds. Animal — the word animal to him will just gunshot, see? Some preclear who is terrifically identified with eating and so forth, will gunshot this badly.

Now, if you were to zone a city or fix it up in such a way that it had one-way streets and the traffic poured down these streets this way and back on the other streets this way . . . If you were to look — if you were to map up, rather, a bunch of particles or marbles that would do the same thing, you would see that they would eddy. And it would take a long time for particles to straighten themselves out in those eddies. And so it is.

Whereas some other one will want to know — "Now, animals." And you'll find him just stringing right along with animals. He's talking about deer and cows and horses and anything that is formally classified as animals. And you'll have to then ask him, "Give me three fish you're not."

So you go over and you want to stop at a store; and you come down the street and you want to stop at that store. And then you go round the block, and then you go around another block, and then you have to come back around two blocks and then go over kind of quick to the park and go around the turntable — and all this time all you were trying to do was to get back on the other side of the street; this was your total. . . And yet they have kept you on the street for a dozen blocks, or at the — more reasonably, four or five blocks sometimes you'll have to be on a street. You shouldn't have to be on a street those extra blocks, because that's just that much more traffic. So they have actually succeeded in multiplying traffic, these traffic engineers, all the time being very systematic about how they were multiplying traffic.

So just remember, if the fish don't appear and the birds don't appear, for goodness sakes, get the fish and the birds in there. "Give me three fish that you're not. Now give me three fish that are not you, and three fish that are not other fish." You'll find him running out of fish very fast. I mean, he'll run out of fish almost right away sometimes.

Sooner or later, if somebody wants to handle traffic in an American city, he'll have to find out how to take the traffic off the street and keep it moving while it's on the street. If you've got to do something about traffic — I don't know why people do, there isn't any reason why you can't park a car in the middle of the intersection, the way you do down in Texas, and hang one arm out the window and have a good long talk with the traffic officer. Nobody ever blows his horn at you, it'd be impolite. You just leave your car right where it is, you see, just back of his car, and walk over to the post office. And that's the easy way to do it — that's Fort Worth, Dallas — that's the way they do down there. They handle traffic down there quite well. Nobody ever goes anyplace.

He says, "Well, let's see — uh, umm-mumm-mummum, a shark. Um-mum-mum, I'm not a shark. Um-mm-mum-mummmmm, I'm not a — not an octopus now. And I'm not a trout. Yeah, that's right. Okay."

But, the main thing you'd have to do is like Pittsburgh: One time I was going through a tunnel in Pittsburgh . . . They made an accident or something in Pittsburgh — a sign painter made an error in painting a sign and I think he said, "Nothing under 65." It was an accident, and of course it was on the city budget and so it would have had to come out of some politician's pocket. And everybody knows you can't get anything out of a politician's pocket, so they never could repaint the sign, so they had to enforce this law on one of their tunnels up there.

Now, he's waiting for you to go on to the next step of the process, and you gay, "Give me three more fish that you're not." This is brutal! (audience laughter)

And I was going through this tunnel — I was traveling in a sport roadster and it was a rather fast little car. And I was traveling along, I thought, a pretty good speed. And I heard a siren go whining and roaring behind me, and a guy comes up alongside of me and sticks his brass-bound cap over the side of the car and he says, "Get a move on!" And I thought I'd misheard him and so I started to slow down, and he said, "No, get a move on!" And so I got a move on. And I looked at the speedometer and I was doing 60 when he said so. I was five miles under the speed limit, I think. So I put the thing up to 80 and he was very happy. So I've known since that the cops are crazy in Pittsburgh, in some fashion or another, because they're not like that in the rest of Pittsburgh — it's just in this area. There's some magnetic influence in the middle of the tunnel which affects their sanity.

Now he's getting pretty well up on that, a little sticky, and you suddenly say, "Now give me three fish that are not you."

But the point is that you've got to make traffic move. In France, by the way, they have no trouble with traffic — they never can find any. Traffic on the highroads there travels at the top speed of the car. There is no speed limit in the country. None. And you see stuff going by which would normally be traveling, and should be traveling, in a safety margin of about 25 kilometers an hour and it's going by at 200 kilometers an hour. They don't drift around — and that in amongst of a bunch of donkey carts and so forth; it makes life interesting. They love to live dangerously.

Well, you'll notice that the indivi, the person is unwilling to duplicate in ratio to the way they will never repeat the name of a fish. Their willingness to duplicate is in ratio to this, you see that? A person will every once in a while use trout or he'll every once in a while use this, and this doesn't worry him, the fact that he's named the same fish — doesn't worry him too much.

Well, but it does keep a lot of traffic moving. Of course, till you get to the outskirts of Paris, and there are enough American tourists in Paris to jam all the traffic there anyhow, so you can't get into Paris.

But if he keeps on using it, he's perfectly willing to duplicate trout, see? That's what it tells you. Or, on the other side, he has trout completely identified. Now, there's two answers to that constant repetition of "shark," let's say, or constant repetition of "cow" — two answers to it. All cows are a cow, or he's perfectly willing to duplicate cows; there's no scarcity of cows. Well, it's up to you to find out this, and the way you do that is, when he has used "cow" now for the fourth time, you say, "What particular cow isn't you?"

But traffic in any way, shape or form that you're trying to cover distance with mass, becomes a problem which is almost an unsurmountable problem, because it's in terms of a problem with communication. The more mass you put into the basic communication, the more difficulty there is in receiving it.

This is liable to really stick him. "Cow? Why, there's only one cow in the world." And he'll say, "That's very peculiar, but that cow — its name is Jezebel, and hooked me once when I was a small child and it's standing right here in the room this minute!"

Now, we take an old-time spark set: At one time or another, they laughing — they had what was laughingly referred to as a radio transmitter. And these things, on a clear day, with conditions absolutely optimum and only burning, I think, something like about twenty-five hundred volts or something and about ten amps — or maybe it was a hundred amps ... By the way, they had a transmitter that had a couple of big electrodes here, like some of the kids do up at MIT when they duel with those swords — they step on a metal plate with metal shoes and wired-up swords and they have this lightning bolt, and they'll duel with this lightning bolt and the public is much edified. Anyway . . .

So, because eating has included people — yes, any one of the GEs on the line has indulged, I'm afraid — because eating has included people, we have our eatingness, then, rather difficult to differentiate sometimes with an individual.

The boys — whenever they introduce any mass, you don't get any distance. And this spark set is definitely such a condition. Because with this enormous input, why, on a clear day, they got about forty miles out of it. Boy, you talk about heavy juice — they were just trying to put it through raw, between two electrodes, and hope somebody got the magnetic vibration of it someplace. It was transmission by gravity or something — if you could move the Earth over to the right or the left. . . And, of course, nobody got anything.

Now, there's what's known as a "stomach case." It's where the genetic entity that is running the stomach — you see, there's some part of the being — of the genetic entity which is another entity. It's — the genetic entity is a composite. It's a large number of entities. And that one that's running the stomach will sometimes, because of the scarcity of food and anxiety and worry on the part of the preclear about his future and so forth — that entity will sometimes practically take control of the whole being. And he will start to digest, you might say, the whole body. You'll see — and you'll find the preclear in a state of being unmocked. You know, he — but he isn't quite responsible for unmocking it, and he's very puzzled as to why his body is half-unmocked all the time and so forth. His body is being digested, you might say, via the entity of the stomach. The entity of the stomach, then, has become so overt that it just — real upset, and it starts to eat the body up.

Now today, they give you a little tiny transmitter and it's got practically no mass, and the signal has very little push behind it, and the darned thing — counting on skip distances and other things, boy, there's no telling where you'll wind up with one of those little tiny transmitters — a mobile transmitter and so forth.

There's been a scarcity of food — food is very important to this case — and there's several ways to do that. One is to feed the stomach entity motivators and mock the fellow up eating himself up. Mock the fellow up with the stomach eating him up just an awful lot of times, and you get considerable relief on the case. But this is — other technique which I've been telling you about, this variation that resolves identification — this variation that resolves identification here is aimed straight at this type of disidentification.

During the war — last part of the war we had FM, and — FM telephones. They cost about thirty-six hundred bucks apiece, I think, or something like that. Industry would never duplicate them — it's only something that you could afford in an emergency. So these FM telephones, though, they're clear as a bell, they're just gorgeous. And the amount of juice in them, was just nothing.

Differentiation, you see, is a little bit different than disidentification.

You get these TBX, TBY — I don't know what that stuff was called — the early stuff, it didn't work, that we had. Walkie-talkies — the Army's still using them, doesn't work. Anyway . . . They break down — why, they're eight pounds of batteries to one pound of set; they're nice and heavy, you know? But these FMs weren't like that, they were tailored down. That's merely because there was a very — it was very accurate where it was going. It very accurately went to where it was supposed to go, and it very accurately was received when it got there. See, the accuracy was the point — not mass.

Disidentification is, you're pulling them apart when they're all piled up in the same space.

Now, the Army walkie-talkie — the first of those that we had anything to do with, they just plain went everywhere, and they got pulled in from everywhere. You were liable to be talking to pilots when you should have been talking to the sergeant and all sorts of things was happening there. That's because they weren't that directional. It wasn't that these things were directional, you understand, but I mean, it's just — it was only supposed to go so far and it was supposed to do just that, and so the engineer designed it so it would just go so far and so it would do just that, and it was a wonderful piece of equipment.

And differentiation, in essence, would be lining them up in different places.

Well, get that in the line of theta: If the guy has accuracy, if he knows which way he's going and knows how far he's got to put it and he can tell with accuracy what's going to happen when it gets there — in other words, if he can predict the arrival of a couple of particles — boy, what he can't do with beams. He can also be three feet back of his head with great accuracy. Why? Because he's not thinking of himself in terms of mest.

So you've got a disidentification there of the fellow with his stomach. Gertrude Stein said, "A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose when I was a little girl." This case is recognizable, though. You as an auditor can — will be able to spot this one, boom! You'll start spotting all sorts of things now that you know what you're looking at. You can just go right ahead and spot things and spot them and spot them, very easily.

Every time a fellow thinks of himself in terms of mest, he gets into bad stuff.

And here you have the genetic entity stomach case. And gee, you start running this case and boy, he has to have like mad. You can't pry an engram or a lock off of him or get anything released or anything. It's all pulled in, pulled in, pulled in, pulled in. You just can't get him to — not only can't you get him to step out of his head, but you can't get him to do anything else. And you couldn't — now, you could say to this case, "Now, what are you willing to give me?" And he wouldn't find anything he was willing to give you.

So we have here the handling of bodies. The most intimate connection he has with mest is a body. There is only one difficulty with this step and that is that it validates bodies.

Well, it's not necessarily true that all people who are pulled in to this degree are genetic entity eating cases — it's not necessarily true, because really, you could take a person and zap him hard enough with an electronic beam or you could walk around and shoot him hard enough from enough angles with gunpowder and he would get this same "reduction down to one terminal" sort of an idea, which would also make him eat hard. But the technique to use on that person is the one which I'm giving you here of Step Ia. That technique will take that case a long way.

Experimental procedures as they come along, and as they will be released — things that are still in an experimental stage — include exteriorization from other things than the body and various methods of doing this. And you, as auditors, now that you've got that much of a clue can go on and do it when it'll work. It has certain limitations. But it's interesting to exteriorize somebody out of a table. Getting the idea that he's in the table and all that sort of thing — it's a terrifically limited technique, by the way.

He's always duplicating something, he's never duplicating nothing. That's a keynote of the technique. And he doesn't have any space and he doesn't have a lot of things, but when it comes right down to it, on the Applause Scale up there, he is at eating. How would you applaud this fellow? You'd feed him. It's the only way you could applaud him.

But here is a better technique — also one of these same experimental techniques. It's not that it's in an experimental stage, but it's just that it has not been released, it isn't up there to the front of the line. But it belongs right here in Step IIa, and I might as well tell you about it.

And sometimes he's below that level, where the only way he could be applauded is being fed, but he can't be applauded. He's inverted on it again, you see. He couldn't even be applauded by being fed, you see. He'd be upset or disturbed at the idea of your feeding him. This person, by the way, could waste praise. You'd probably start him wasting praise until he could have some praise and you'd find out that his condition would materially improve. Why? Because this identification is on the Applause Scale. Because eating is on the Applause Scale.

It runs on the basis of disabusing an individual from being mest and time, that's what it is. And what do you know, it comes under the heading of handling bodies. See? Communication lag, communication thing. He — this fellow that you're having trouble with is having an awful lot of trouble simply because he's walking around believing he's mass.

The problems of the beast of the jungle are that nobody takes time to applaud. The — if anybody does anything to him, it'll run a long way off and ridicule him. And he doesn't like this and so he'll eat them up.

Well, you get him out of there as not being mass, and he'll be perfectly happy. But he just — all of his reality is tied up in being mass. And by the way, he can see all right when he's exteriorized and he'll very often exteriorize as a piece of mass. He's liable to exteriorize with a great big black body; he's liable to exteriorize with electrically rigged fingers. I think there's probably one or two people here that have probably done that. You know, exteriorize momentarily and flop back into the body again and say, "Oh my God, life's too dangerous and I'm liable to get destroyed."

Imagine the state of mind of an entity — let's just get off the basis of structure and it's all built that way and that's how it works. Just let's imagine the state of mind of a being which became ravingly in agony in the absence of applause. That would really be something, wouldn't it? Where would you spot this person? I mean, what other conditions would you say went along with this being? Well, he's playing the "only one" like mad, wouldn't you say? Must be so overbalanced and tipped over on the subject of beingness that everything in the world had to grant it beingness. I mean, he must look at anything around — that thing must have to grant him beingness. He can grant nothing beingness. He knows this, he's convinced.

How can a thetan be destroyed? He can only be hit as — in the ratio that he has mass to hit. So he's holding on to this body and protecting himself — what's he protecting? He's protecting something that needs no protection. He is the thing that needs no protection, so he must be protecting somebody else.

You get a level of depravity, by the way, which would make a police informer look like a saint — the character of this being. If you get this, the — it is so craving applause, it's just in agony and pain when it's not received. That's the stomach entity, and that is a good index of the sanity of the GE. It's unimaginably crazy. You've never seen a whole being that crazy. That's pretty crazy.

So it comes up on the line that there must be some kind of an affinity or sympathy between himself and this kind of a body for him to have this mass. So his sympathy for mass, in the final analysis, becomes his agreement with the mest universe and becomes in itself the reason why he believes he's mass. Sympathy for mass, believing that he is mass — same thing.

The way stomach entities are made might interest you. They put them on a board and they stab them and beat them at irregular intervals, and make it completely unpredictable how they're going to be beaten next. That's the way that stomach entities are made. They are beaten and zapped and pounded in and hammered at unpredicted intervals and so forth until they're inverted and then reinverted and then reinverted and then reinverted down to a point where they're in agony unless they get applause. They can't exist for three days unless they're applauded — in other words, zapped again. See, that's the condition of mind of a stomach entity. I say "how they are made," "how they make them" — that's interesting, they actually are made. They're not evolved, they're made.

Well, a method of exteriorization which I'll give you now in its most elementary form, is simply you have the individual point around and find three objects which he is not. And you just keep this up in brackets until he's so damn mad at you, he could kill you. But you do it very mildly and you do it very pleasantly, because he'll get bored with this. Of course, he can't be three feet back of his head either — always remember that. He can only be three feet back of his head if he is not mass.

Pattern. There are seven major entities to the body and these are the structural ridges of the body. And you take a little beingness, you see, and you put it into the midst of some energy and then you hammer it down and you convince it of its personality and then you keep zapping it in and pounding it around and — it's quite interesting. Nothing much to it.

So here's an example of it. I'll give you that example immediately by giving you the process:

Some fellow one time said, "You know, this business about ridges — why couldn't you take a little piece of a ridge, you know, and set the thing up and, you know, it'd compute? You know, it'd be a much better computing machine than you can build out of metal."

Give me three — three material objects in this room which you are not.

Yes, that's true! That's the — that's what they do.

Three more material objects which you are not.

Now, a fellow can be made to worry so much about food and his daily bread, that he will begin to agree too thoroughly with the stomach entity and by agreement alone, just by contagion, begin to take on the characteristics of the stomach entity. So he has a certain hectic sort of madness about him and if this is the general thing that's going on throughout existence, why, naturally it's the accepted thing.

Give me three material objects in the past which you are not. All right.

What to Audit is the one piece of work which has anything, really, about this in it. It talks quite a bit about the genetic line and so forth. It's actually just a survey or a history of the genetic entity rather than a history of man, but it talks about the thetan and so on. What to Audit was written at the end of a cycle of investigation which had continued, actually, for a long, long while. It consummated a cycle of investigation in Dianetics which told one this story — it said man is not the body. That was the inevitable conclusion about all of man, simply because he doesn't resolve as a case as long as you treat him as a body. And it said also, there are too many types of engrams on a case for the case to possibly have exhausted on it.

You notice we've got this handled to some degree up here at Step Ia, but not to this final, horrible degree. Because here we're handling very specifically and specially the problem of mass, and there are other ways to handle it than just this way. We're trying to disabuse him from the fact that he is an object. So you could separate objects, as of in Step Ia, but you go further on this, you go further on this:

And as a result, What to Audit closed the investigation of the genetic entity. It's there for somebody to open sometime if somebody wants to go through data on it. The essentials of the data discovered are there and in Electropsychometry Auditing, that other little book — little manual — the method of the analysis of the GE, is taken up. That's the — those two books, Electropsychometry Auditing and What to Audit, are the two of them, more or less companion pieces. The E-Meter, What to Audit and Electropsychometry Auditing — a trio.

Have him mock up an object which he's not.

Now, anybody that wanted to do any interesting investigation work on this thing would be able to take that trio and they would discover, I am afraid — I am very, very much afraid that they would discover more or less the text of What to Audit after they got all through it again. That was a long, long piece of work. It was very amusing and it was very interesting; there's tremen­dous things on it.

Mock up another object which he's not stuck in.

Well, today, in the processes that you do, these things will show up. And when they show up, it's because the thetan has had a similar experience on his own track. See, the thetan has a different track than the GE. And the thetan has had this similar experience, you might say, and so gets at that point a facsimile agreement. And we get this thing called a facsimile agreement, you see. He has a facsimile in common with the GE, and therefore because it's happened to him .. .

Mock up another object which he's not stuck in.

Now, did you ever see two old guys and they meet down at the corner store and they're kind of fencing around at each other and not particularly interested in each other, until they both find out that they went through the blizzard in Cheyenne in '97, and that they both know Doakes. And now we go on from there and we get an endless, pointless conversation. Same way between the thetan and the GE — the thetan is the one that makes the error, though. The thetan says, "Well, do you know that this GE has — went through the blizzard in Cheyenne too."

Mock up an object in which nobody else is stuck.

Well, it's — a mechanical sympathy sets up; and that in itself is sympathy — similar experience. And on that basis alone does the thetan come into agreement with the GE. And that's the basis on how they get into agreement. And after that, the woes of the GE are the thetan's woes.

Now have somebody else mock up an object in which nobody else is stuck.

Now, you hear me very often when I'm exteriorizing somebody and I've had them mock up a body a few times and duplicate nothing and do this and do that, and "where they're not," and so on. Well, I'll come around to the basis "Now, pat the body on the head and say, 'Poor body.' "

Interesting process, isn't it? Okay.

Every time I do that, somebody will get a little pain or a shock or they'll snap in and out real quick or they do something. Because what you're undoing there is the possession on the part of the thetan of an incident which has happened to him, similar to the GE's incident. And you're just undoing those one at a time. And you undo them by, "Poor body." And then have the body say, "Poor thetan." You know? Just sympathy.

Now, we would just cover it from that basis and then we make him lie. The mest universe tells the truth, and here's where that step would vary from Step Ia. Step Ia, you're just going along on the basis of he's not here and there and so forth. Now we make him lie.

What is sympathy? Sympathy is the same size and shape alongside of, and that, in essence, is a terminal in operation. Sympathy is a terminal in operation. An electric motor won't run unless its two electrodes are one in sympathy with the other one. You got to have them on the same voltage and same amperage and tuned up the same way in the same magnetic fields, otherwise you'll get no interchange.

Give me three objects in the room which you insist you are. Sort of point at them and say, "I'm that. I'm in that, I'm in that, and I'm in that." All right.

Well, it's just these similar incidents: "We both went through the blizzard of Cheyenne." So that you get a person in later life and you start to exteriorize him — well boy, he's been through a lot with this GE, you see. He has a lot of similar experience. He has the same set as the GE has, so he thinks of himself more or less as a GE, rather than ... He thinks of himself as one thing, whereas his health and beingness depends on not agreeing with something that is so goofy that it gets to — it gets — it will commit murder in order to get applause.

Three more objects which you insist you are.

It's interesting that the GE has an area around its mouth which is "there." I mean, the phrase "there" fits it more than anything else or "has arrived" or "know." These things all sort of fit around the GE's mouth.

Male voice: Oh, no!

Why? Because everything it's ever eaten knows. See, when he's eaten things alive, boy, that thing knew right at that moment that it had arrived, that it was there, and it knows now. What's it know? It knows it's going to be eaten. See, there's no further doubt in its mind when the teeth go crunch!

No! (audience laughter)

So these things all work out. It's almost impossible to exteriorize somebody without running into some of this phenomena. But regard it as phenomena — and you can do something about it, so we shouldn't be too concerned with this phenomena. It doesn't interrupt a case. It isn't different from one case to another. Before you do much processing, though, you better read What to Audit and Electropsychometric Auditing, the two of them, and run a few tests on this. Because after that you won't be surprised. Your preclear will then become predictable to you and it'll make you a lot more comfortable about auditing preclears.

Male voice: I saw Shannon's pipe!

So this fellow, all of a sudden, he gets a horrible, horrible burning pain in the side of his head. You're auditing him, you're just using these techniques, and you start to worry about that. You think he's going to bust a blood vessel. Oh no! You just ran into a Fac One cap or a zap. Oh, and he keeps telling you he has a sort of a knob back here on the back of his head and it hurts, it hurts every once in a while. It's just an old nip. I mean, it's — thetan hit this body one time or another on one side and on the other side simultaneously, and it's made a — laid in a nice big ridge and it's sitting right there. That's all that is. It processes out. Do you suddenly detour and process that all by itself? No, you just keep on with the process. But it's so comfortable to know what it is and know what to expect next.

Okay.

For instance, if you start to get a zap in one part of the endocrine system — that is to say, that all of a sudden the guy feels a pressure, piercing pain in one part of his endocrine system. You're processing a girl, all of a sudden she feels this piercing pain in an ovary — bang, you know — went out, bang!

Now point to three objects in the room which you insist somebody else is in. Okay.

Well, hold your hat, because you're going to get it in the other side too — she's going to get it over there, too. Only there's no reason to tell her about this. And if you process her after a while and she doesn't get some of it on the other side too, then you stuck her in the Fac One, because that's the knockdown of the endocrine system.

Now point to three completely empty spaces in the room which you insist you're in.

First thing that was hit in the endocrine system was a zap on the pineal. The next one is a zap on the pituitary. And then they zap some of the thyroid and then the ovary system, the pancreas and so on. A zap goes in each one of these places and quite often the piercing pains which people come in with, they — medicine calls it "bizarre pains" and so forth — are out of something like the Jiggler or the Tumbler or Fac One, or a nip or something; they're very explainable. You ought to have some conversance with these things, not because you agree that they are terribly aberrative — because they're curiosa and you run into them.

This would be the way it'd go until you've just plowed a guy out, that's all. You make him insist he's mass. You make him determine that he is mass, and then you make him determine that he isn't mass. And then you make him determine that he is mass, and then you make him determine he isn't mass. And you just go back and forth that way. And you do it as much of a bracket as you can possibly put your imagination to, but you just keep this up. And you run the dichotomy, "I am certain I am the object. I'm certain I'm not the object."

Well, now in covering this Step I, anytime that your case does not do a very fast spring up the line on just "places where he's not," well, I — and you don't get him back of his head right away and his perceptions aren't on, you'd better go into identification. And I've given you the patter for that. You'd better go in for identification in terms of people, in terms of objects, and in terms of animals. Them animals is awful important. Of course, you hit it for all dynamics, but those are the most important things that you'll find. And remember to run the other part of the bracket on that one, which is "What objects are not other objects? What animals are specifically not other animals."

But how do you do it? You do it in terms of spatial locations, and this is how you get him out of his body.

Your patter on this is very simple and it's very easily done, and I don't think there's a case present that shouldn't have it run. Not because all the cases are in bad shape, but because you, particularly, have done the compression of an awful lot of data.

You also can have him mock up bodies and insist he's in those and insist he is not in those. Only you don't tell him modus operandi, you just keep going that way: "Three objects that you're not in. Three objects that you're in."

You've compressed your knowingness considerably and you've looked at a lot of these things and so on. It's about time you did the most overtly differentiative process which we have — the most basic and overt process we have. And therefore, you should go into that and do some of it, because you'll find out it'll make you feel a lot better. Less differentiation, okay — pardon me, more differentiation is — less differentiation inevitably results from crowding a lot of data in a short period of time.

Now, so much for that — communication and the amount of mest in it.

Okay.

Last night I talked to you about the granting of beingness. I want to show you that in action as a process.

Get three spaces out in front of you and get them granting you a license to survive.

Female voice: That's funny.

Get three objects in the room giving you permission to survive.

Three more spaces in the room giving you permission to survive.

And this is a real silly one: Make three motions with your hand that will give you a license to survive. There is symbolism coming up — hand rituals, hand signals and so forth — there's a lot of them. Enter doingness into it in terms of that. All right.

Now, here in Step II — that's part of Step Ia, but — where it would fit. But here at Step II, there's another one. There's another one. And boy, this is so much like Effort Processing that it's really remarkable. Here we've got — here we've got bodies needing applause. And this is why I didn't bring up this developmental-stage technique to amount to anything, merely because it hasn't been run enough, on enough people here at this time. But I want to give it to you so that you'll have it to work with.

And that is, you take the Applause Scale up there on the chart, and the Applause Scale is a very interesting piece of work, actually, if you start looking over this Applause Scale. Because you have up here under "applause" — up here at the top, let us say, going somewhere in the vicinity from 40.0 down to 0.0 — starting at the top and coming down, you have at the top that an individual performs for an effect and knows it is an effect. And a little bit lower down, he desires applause but he's unconcerned if it doesn't come. And a little bit lower down, he invites and requests applause. And a little lower down, he becomes angry in the absence of applause. And lower than that, he gets fear, grief and apathy because of the lack of applause. And below that is eating.

See? His applause now is getting condensed; it was condensed enough at fear, grief and apathy. Well, what's this but introducing mest into a communication line, see? And so we get down to eating, and you finally get into the final apathy, which is also starvation in the realization that there will never be any applause for any effect. Can't eat, so he dies.

Okay, in such a wise, you get a process which runs out, directly, eating. Now, I say it's very experimental, but it is useful. All right. Because applause, attention, see — I mean, we haven't got any real difference between those two things.

Let's get three spaces around you demanding attention from you.

Now let's get you demanding attention from three spaces.

Now let's get three objects in the room demanding attention from you.

Now let's get you demanding attention from three objects in the room.

Now let's get somebody demanding attention from somebody else in the room — I mean actual people. Put a feeling there. All right.

Now let's get you demanding attention from three objects.

Now three objects demanding attention from you.

And let's get an object demanding attention from another object.

Now let's get an object refusing attention from another object.

Now let's get three objects in the room refusing your attention.

And let's get you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And three objects refusing attention to you.

And three objects refusing attention to you.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And you refusing attention to three objects.

And three objects demanding attention from you.

And three objects being bored while you demand attention from them.

And you being bored while three objects demand attention from you.

Now, that in essence, actually belongs under "beingness" in Step I. However, you run into somebody start having trouble with the body, he's having trouble with eating. So you be sure that you ask him what three animals he isn't. And just beat that one to pieces. And what three animals aren't three other animals. And if he can stand it, and if his sanity will stand it and so forth, why, you run this other one, about attention.

Now, granting one beingness is very often something that just turns on the lights in all direction and practically blows the guy Clear. So just don't — don't neglect it. And the way you run that one is:

Get three objects in the room — I've already been over this a moment ago. Give me three objects in the room giving you beingness.

And three objects in the room refusing to give you beingness.

And you giving beingness to three objects in the room.

And you refusing to give beingness to three objects in the room.

And get this conceptually: You refusing to give beingness to a preclear.

And a preclear refusing to accept you giving him beingness.

Of course, the final run of this is the basic aberrated postulate on this whole line and that is, "Nobody can give anybody beingness but me" — that's the aberrated postulate that anybody makes on it. And the other one is, "Nobody's going to give me any beingness." That's the other line. "Oh, help me, will you? I'll cut your throat."

Very often — this, by the way, is very high scale as an aberration. You very often find this in its most heightened form in a child. There is, by the way, the basic mechanics of independence. That's not the basic mechanics of self-determinism, that's the basic mechanics of independence: "I must get along by myself. I can only do it myself," and so forth. See? "I can only do it for myself" and that sort of thing. That's refusing to let somebody else give you beingness.

By the way, I ran into a pc not too long ago who had the most interesting angle on all of this. The pc was sitting there trying to find out what the auditor was going to do. You talk about a present time lag on this pc. The auditor was doing it, you see, but the pc spent his whole session trying to find out what the auditor was going to do.

As a consequence, the pc didn't do anything he was told to do because he just wanted to see what the auditor was going to do. Well, the auditor wasn't going to do anything, the auditor was there and so forth. And I explained this to the pc, with absolutely no change in the case: "All the auditor was trying to do was to get you to do the things the auditor was asking you to do." And this was over the head of the pc.

Well, now what's this boil down to? It just boils down to the fact that some­times a pc is being so darn protective, which is to say, the only one that's going to grant any beingness or prevent — he's the only one that's going to prevent beingness from being granted, that could be another twist on it — that he just never seems to get any processing. And that is above the level of "resist all effects." Many a preclear will sit around, and just sit there to resist all effects.

Now, sometimes a preclear will consider the auditor too enthusiastic — you know, the auditor moves and breathes, and this is too enthusiastic for them and so on. Well, when this is the case, the preclear's rocklike aspect has been assumed early in life in protection against somebody who just leaped at him all the time. You know, Mama or Papa or somebody — leap at him suddenly, beat him around, boot him around, do something, jump here, jump there, correct him, nervous tension, lot of anxiety and all that sort of thing roaring around. And the fellow, just to survive at all, he just sits into a stony, rocklike beingness, see? He isn't going to respond to anything like that.

And although this preclear may even dutifully run what you're telling him to do, he's running it with his primary concentration on "I mustn't give any beingness to this motion the auditor is making. I have to hold myself this way so the auditor won't go any further with this." In other words, he's running a "restrain the auditor." The auditor's alive, he's breathing. That's enough for many a preclear.

So you want to look at a preclear and see if he isn't putting out a few ten-ton beams for communication lines, so as to prevent you, an auditor, from stampeding him in some fashion or another. And this pc is liable to look very solid. He's liable to be a very solid citizen. He's liable to be solid enough to be measured as a cube. That's about the score on it.

Now, when you detect on an E-Meter that a pc has had in his past a very, very nervous, hysterical parent — one or the other — you can detect at the same time that he's going to assume this sort of a hard, solid aspect when there appears to be any slightest commotion. And he's liable to consider "a commotion" the fact that you're talking. I mean it's liable to be that bad.

But you learn to — you learn by looking. And you look at some preclears, and you see the way they look when they're processing. And then you just kind of think to yourself, you just say, "Well, now look-a-here, it says in the textbook this and that, but here I am sitting here looking at this preclear. All right, and the textbook isn't looking at the preclear, I am. Now, one, this preclear doesn't look to me like he's alive enough to have 8-C run on him."

Well, what do you do then? You just grab for some of the lighter processes, like "Let's remember something real" or 'What's the realest object in the room?" You just fall back to SOP 8, something like that, feel your way through the thing.

Another thing is to establish communication with the preclear.

Now, there's another aspect that you're going to miss occasionally. This rock-hardness has an opposite pole, it has the supernervous person. A person who doesn't necessarily giggle, but appears to line charge. Appears — this person appears to line charge on something. You think you as an auditor have hit a button, see? And you just don't progress. Now, why, why, why? This case doesn't progress. That's because what needs to be run on the case is just that — just that. The case is very tensely holding you off, and is readily showing you that an effect will be made so you won't go any deeper — and you won't get any deeper either. This is another method of resisting. You see that as a method of resisting? All right.

You could have such a case put that very nervous feeling in the walls, with considerable benefit to the case. You'll figure this case is line charging, but the case really isn't line charging, there's something wrong going on here. As an auditor, you just look it over and adjudicate it and just have what the case is doing and put it up in the walls. Duplicate it, you know, till the fellow's kind of discharged on it a little bit, and then he'll settle down to some processing.

But there's many a time when you won't get results on a preclear, when you could swear to golly that this preclear has gotten rid of more locks and done more things, merely because the preclear laughed and appeared relieved and agreed with you and said, "That's great," and so forth. All they're doing is agreeing with you. They're showing you that you're producing an effect, and their main concentration is upon you producing an effect. You see, they want to make sure that you're successful, so they let you produce an effect. And they just let you go on producing the effect. It has nothing to do with the case. Because that's what's wrong with the case — they let people produce an effect.

Well, there's a thousand ways of handling it, lots and lots of ways of handling that. You've got all kinds of technologies which permit you to handle it.

But let me give you this: In the line of communication, your preclear is in — uniformly introducing as much mest into the communication line being used in auditing, as the communication lag of the preclear is actually, and as much mass as the preclear himself actually has. He's introducing as much mest as is actually in the communication line.

In other words, he's putting up barriers between you and him. The first thing you should do, in looking over a case, is to pick up those barriers, whether — no matter what they are, and throw them away and then process the guy. Because by throwing them away, you take the mest out of the communication line. He's demonstrating it to you right there in front of your face, so why not take the MEST out of the line? Throw it away.

Hysterics? Rocklike stability? What is this mest that he's putting into this line so that you can't process him? It's up to you to throw it away. He offers it to you right at the first part of the session, right immediately. Why don't you just pick it up and throw it away? You got lots of means by which to do it. You can double-terminal it, you can do all sorts of things. You can put it in the walls, you can move it up as an idea, shove it around, do anything you want to with it.

But always make sure you're doing this with a case: Make sure you aren't processing somebody that's eight steps below Step VIII. And if you're processing him, strictly "What room?" and when you've finished "What room?" go off into the next-to-the-last list of Self Analysis: "Remember something real." You'll always win if you do those things.

Okay.