We have, now, actually covered the mechanics of all of this. And these actually, really, all the mechanics there are. You take this and define them, you get the precise definition of each of these things, you know that precise definition and you understand that, you're — you're there. You're in, see? Just like that.

Let's start in here with a very fast review of the important data which we have to have at our command in order to accomplish Theta Clearing of Steps I to VII inclusive on Standard Operating Procedure Number 5.

What's survival: That is duration of beingness. That's all — duration of beingness. And what are the dynamics? Those are the — you might say — the impulses of beingness or the compartmentation of survival.

Now, Standard Operating Procedure Number 5 holds more or less as it holds, except where the modus operandi for Level V, Level VI and Level VII is changed. These changes, of course, influence the Level of a I, II, III, IV. You can't change the more aberrated conditions without improving the upper strata of conditions.

You can take survive as an urge — a thrust through time, you see — and if you knocked it apart into eight sections you'd find that each person was trying to survive as all eight within himself.

So now, what we're talking about now is, we're going to talk right straight across the boards about Case Levels V to VII in general and you will understand that we are applying these techniques as they apply also to the IV, III, II and I. Because, don't miss it, you'll very often have a I who can't make a particle of admiration. He can't make any.

So you see the eight dynamics are the parts of an individual effort to survive.

You'll very often have a person step out of his body and not be able to leave the room and not have the body go out into the hall! And you say, "This is obviously a Step I case." Well, its behavior operates like Step I, that's all. Its behavior is the behavior of Step I, with the thetan mad as a hatter.

Now we have eight dynamics as parts of the whole MEST universe, so that we have two universes here. We have the universe of the individual and we have the universe of the universe, the whole thing, and each one of them is described by eight dynamics.

And these techniques then apply because we're dealing with two things — three things: We're dealing with what we call a thetan, which is the beingness of an individual; and we are dealing with a body and its experience in one lifetime; and the third thing we're dealing with is the thetan plus the body. We're dealing with these three things.

And don't think there are things that you will find in the whole universe that you don't find in the individual or things which you'll find in the individual that you won't find out in the whole universe.

We have a technique for Level VII, let us say. This means that we would also, then, have a technique or an understanding of Level VI. If we have a technique for Level VI, we also have an understanding of Level V.

This is the old, old, old, old theory of the microcosm and the macrocosm; very ancient, only we've got it carved down and whittled up and laid out and made out of — from a jigsaw puzzle into a nice picture, and it's a good orderly picture.

Anybody can dream up a psychotherapy for a Step I unless the psycho-therapy is a crazy thetan — addresses a crazy thetan, you see? Anybody could dream up a psychotherapy for a Case Level I. This is no problem. Don't try it on Case Level II though; it's — probably won't work. And it certainly isn't even going to vaguely work on IV, much less V.

What is the internal world? It isn't an internal world in the first place; it's a potential universe.

So what we've been doing here is going deeper and deeper and deeper into the problem of what makes the human mind miscompute. And every time it had to be a simpler, deeper datum until now we, of course, are dealing with techniques very close to what? Insanity itself. And it takes a simple, easy technique to handle it and we have those and that technique to handle it.

And what is the universe? The universe is the same pattern, and so we have the whole, and any God's quantity of parts which are the same as the whole and have the same potentialities as the whole and are really the same size as the whole. And here we have a case where the whole is not the sum of its parts. The whole, in this case, is the sum of all of the wholes there are.

You're going to see action in a preclear though.

So for — we get interaction of survival where the individual identifies his own universe with the entire MEST universe and from this identification, from this mistake, derives the first aberration. It's a mistake.

By using this technique on a I, of course, you are going to see action on the I although this technique is designed for a VII.

He, you see, has the total potentiality and conduct of a deity, and then he looks out and finds out what is described as a deity, so he assigns his potentialities to the deity and gives them all over and then depends upon this idea of a deity exterior to himself. Only it's not exterior to himself. Now you see, he mixes up his own godliness with godliness.

Of course, then, anybody could dream up something to handle a I, but it is highly doubtful if anybody has ever been able to touch in the past or do anything in the past before Dianetics for a Case Level II, as thin as that. It's very interesting because you can have an insane I, you see?

In Philadelphia, John and I have a — had a joke. If we ever — we ever happen to get in a wild mood and blow a few buildings down, or something of the sort, you'll hear of a little sign being left behind, and the sign will say, "You have abandoned your godliness!"

And this just about accounts for the cures of witch doctors and so on. Because strangely enough the percentage of cures obtained by witch doctors — this isn't said as a sad crack; it's just said as — it just happens to be a fact. The level of cure obtained by witch doctors and the level of cure (percentage, you know, of successes) obtained by a Freudian psychoanalyst happen to be the same percentage.

That person who is aberrated has abandoned his godliness all right, but he has given up his own potentialities and dignities over to some exterior thing which he can't control.

I looked at that when I first ran into that and I — it made me hold my breath. I said, "What the heck, here?" I didn't make capital out of it by saying, "You know, they were probably better off with the witch doctors" — there were more witch doctors per unit of populace than there are psychoanalysts per unit of populace, many more, it ran about one to fifty witch doctors.

Now, he can control himself as his own godliness. He can control that, and he thinks he fails because he can't control the universe's concept of it. So he thinks he can't control his own beingness, his own dignity, his own serenity, benignity and so on, if these can't be — because he can't control a thing they call "god" somewhere, you see?

All right, now let's — why did this figure come in so close? It means not that just interest in somebody will cure so much a percentage of people. You could say that and not pay attention to the whole problem and thus dismiss it. That isn't the case. You've got — what is the percentage of Case Level I's you have at your disposal? And it happens that it's about the same in primitive culture as it is in Western culture — voila. Of course, the figure of cure, then, would be the same. And that's about the case.

And he gets these two things identified completely and after that he can't be serene because he depends upon some exterior, uncontrollable, inexplicable being to direct his destinies and give him serenity.

I know probably more about primitive cultures than I do about Western culture. I've always kind of avoided Western culture, much as I could. Of course, avoiding it like mad, here I am stuck in it, anyway.

The only person who will ever give him serenity is him. And the only way he'll ever get thoroughly controlled is to become dependent upon the MEST universe counterpart of one of his dynamics. That's a big mouthful right there: "The only way he will fall under control and become less self-determined is when he has become dependent upon a MEST universe counterpart of one of his own dynamics."

So, you can say that right now we're going for broke on the subject of insanity; go for broke.

Here we have the preclear with eight dynamics, and we find out that his second dynamic is in terrible condition. What is the first thing we can adjudicate about that second dynamic? He has become dependent upon the MEST universe counterpart of his own second dynamic for the sensation known as the second dynamic.

And before I scare you to death about this, let me let you in on this little secret. The only thing which permits a communication line to open once it's closed is admiration. So we speak of old "Jim-Jam the Witch," with her boiling pot, her herbs, her incantations and her little doll in which she stuck pins saying, "Now, we'll stick another pin in and this will be right through his heart. Now, we go over with a nice incantation that's horrible beyond . . ." And you think this is going to work? Oh, no, this isn't going to work.

I actually — I mean, I could probably go on saying this for the next ten hours, and I probably would have told you all you'd need to know about auditing, except for the mechanical tricks. So let that one kind of sink.

The only place this is going to work is on Jim-Jam Jenny. Is she ever going to make any effect upon the fellow she's trying to hex? She could only make an effect upon him if she admired him, and she's harming him because she doesn't admire him. There you go.

Wherever he is aberrated he has become dependent. You can shorten it to that.

That's the works. Can you use them? Is black magic workable? And the answer is "No!" — not unless you want to stick yourself with it.

If he becomes dependent, he cannot control. Dependency is, in essential, an abandonment of control of an area.

So the clue of how to be something, if you wanted to be it permanently or get stuck in being it, would simply to be it and then not admire it because that would close your communication lines on it; that would collapse your bank on it.

You want to know why he is having difficulty and seems to have his engram bank crawling all over him; he has placed so much dependency upon his engram bank, he can no longer control it. It's boss, he isn't; it's cause and he's effect.

Say, "Isn't that beautiful," and you've got a line to it; now you've got a very secure line on it, and you say, "What a hateful, ugly mess this is," and clap, you've got it. You wonder why men damn machinery. Well, they damn it because they want to get rid of it, but by damning it, they acquire it forever. It's very interesting. All right.

He himself is memory. He is memory, not his engram bank. And when he says, "My engram bank now is memory and I depend upon my memory to tell me what to do," he is abandoning, then, control of his own memory. He has become dependent upon his engram bank to have a memory.

We have, now, certain positive definite things with which we're working and they're very simple things, and the first one is survive. This has suddenly come forward as being the most important thing we happen to know, once more.

And wherever a person has permitted a dependency to swing into being, that person has to that degree become aberrated.

All right, we've got survive. Now, we have eight dynamics — eight dynamics. And those dynamics are from one to eight, and the first dynamic is self, and the second dynamic is sex. Sex divides into the act of sex and children. The third dynamic is that of groups, whether a small or a large group. The fourth dynamic is mankind. The fifth dynamic is the animal king-dom. The sixth dynamic is the MEST universe. The seventh dynamic is the world of theta, your thetans and so forth, and the eighth dynamic is infinity, right side up; this could be called God. But if you call it God remember that by classification you're talking about the supreme beings because there doesn't happen to . . . All right, we're not going to engage in an argument on that point. I should make my position very clear.

But mind you, you could let a 50 percent dependency along the eight dynamics exist, 50 percent of a dependency, and you would be at optimum action. So don't think that dependency is bad! Dependency uncontrolled and misunderstood and not understood by the individual is thoroughly bad!

For instance, Christ and the great teachers back through — there have been six or eight of them in the past. Boy, they came into this earth here so loaded down with truth, they could hardly walk. Now, I'm very definitely in there pitching where these boys are concerned, very definitely. And with the fellows that came along and did something with those teachings and messed them up and used them for control mechanisms, and that sort of thing, I'm afraid I'm not on good speaking terms with that second classification. So that's my position on religion in case anybody gets into an argument on it.

So what's bad about dependency? It's knowing or unknowing. You know you're dependent or you don't know you're dependent. If you don't know you're dependent, that's bad because there is a hidden influence. Hidden influences are what have cut you off from all of your dynamics. We'll go into that further.

The eighth dynamic would have to include perforce God and the Devil in order to be infinity. If somebody comes along and tells you, "God is all," boy, he means God is also that jail down there. He means God is also that automobile accident that just happened down the road. And God's the Republican Party, and God's the Conservatives! It's interesting.

But let's not be puzzled about what's wrong with a preclear, and when we take an assessment, let's be very positive about this. All you have to assess in terms of the preclear, to get and bring into being and break out into the light any data you want, is right around this word here depend versus self-determinism. You're trying to return to the preclear his self-determinism; therefore, the enemy to his self-determinism is dependency.

"God's all" so therefore he must be God — Devil. It's one of the oldest maxims of magic that all angels have two faces, a good face and a bad face. In order to be a thoroughgoing angel they have to have a good face and a bad face. So those are your dynamics.

You can find the moment a person has made a postulate to become dependent and just flip out that postulate and have him rather turn from dark to light.

Anything fall outside these dynamics? Not in this universe. Now, is there a ninth dynamic? Yes, very probably. Is there a tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth? Sure, sure, probably, but not here in this universe!

What dependency did he elect? Now, of course, that's just lucky shooting. And we don't want much lucky shooting in auditing. We don't have to have lucky shooting in auditing; it's fun to do it sometimes.

We might have some kind of a shadow or something of the sort here that we get into in the field of aesthetics. And then we get into this big question which isn't a question of logic, but a question of experience. Beauty, what is beauty?

With these other techniques, we just get all the shots in. We just work it and all the shots fall out of the locker. That's all there is to it.

Well, beauty is something you experience. "Well, what is beautiful?" Any-time the fellow asks that, you know you're talking to a critic. An evaluation on the level of aesthetics is not possible. You see, evaluation would take place on the level of logic. And therefore you can't get logical about art. And if there's any truth to that we would find some echo of that truth in the MEST universe, wouldn't we? And we do find it. We find out that every poor dog that's had to go to school to learn art has been practically finished. They don't do it!

So here is your unit of two — dependency versus self-determinism, and we are in, then, into the period and area of behavior. Now, we've got the mechanics of this, and we see that there are two terminals necessary. We see that two terminals are necessary to get perception, to get communication, and so forth. We see that we've got to have two terminals.

There's hundreds of thousands of poor gullible young fools going to universities to study writing. What an awful swindle. They're being logical about art. You can't be logical about art. And it's with great bewilderment that these young fellows suddenly turn up one day in the lap of a professional writer and they say, "Oh, you're Mr. Jones, huh? Gosh, I'm glad. What school did you attend?" "I didn't go to school." "Well, now, now you must have gone to some — you must have learned how to ..." "Oh, I learned how to read when I was three. And that's why I got the Pulitzer Prize this year and the Nobel prize and the rest of these ..."

And everybody in the universe is under the delusion it's all single and everything is single. Well, we can undo this singleness, this single factor with a technique known as Admiration Processing. It came in the front door and went out the back door so quick that we could barely have time to tip our hats to it because much better stuff showed up immediately.

Oh, it's terrible; nobody quite makes this data go together. Why is it — why is it that all of the famous writers never went to school? And here's one for you. You've had a great many famous philosophers here in Great Britain. You've had Herbert Spencer amongst others. And you could go down this list one after the other — Francis Bacon and all the rest of them — but all due respect to the great universities, don't inquire what the old school tie was in each case.

Why did it show up instantly? Well, it's all we had to do was apply a little Admiration Processing, and we could see more about the mind than we'd ever seen before, so it was a necessary step, but we saw it so quick, that it wasn't necessary to practice Admiration Processing.

Bacon went down and stayed a couple, three months and says, "To hell with this!" and went home. That's fascinating.

So this walked in the front door, and we find out that there is a way to solve the unit-beingness phobia. In other words this universe is sitting here pretending to be a one-terminal universe and it won't discharge or run out unless two terminals exist. At least two of everything have to exist. Things will run out.

Now here, then, when we move out of the level of logic, we get into a level of art, or below logic we get into a level of insanity. What's art? Well, when somebody said, "What is beautiful?" he is saying, "Please evaluate for me, beauty."

If you're having trouble with your car and you're mad at your car, just mock your car up twice sitting alongside of your car, and just make it sit there, and then keep putting cars in there, and it's played "Put your car back there again every time it starts to fade out." It'll fade out.

Beauty is an experience. It would have to do with a sensation and sensations are as good as they give you sensation.

Some of you will start to put a car there and it'll be gone, and you'll say, "I can't get a mock-up of a car." Oh no, no, cars are just so scarce that you've just got to keep putting a car, a car, a car, a car, a car. Finally, what do you know, what do you know, you're starting to get a car there. You also get a somatic that sounds like a crankshaft in your head. But that's all right, you've got — you've got one car, one car sitting there, and you've got . . . Now if you work real quick, you can get — keep this car here and put the second one — no, they're gone. But now if we keep on working with this we'll put this one car here, and we put the car, car, put it there, put it there, put it there; now we get that second one there; we get a shadow of it, now it's more there, now, you have two cars. Gee, they disappear in a hurry! Two cars, two cars, two cars, two cars, two cars, two cars.

Then what is sensation? Does it have anything to do with evaluation? No. Evaluation doesn't happen to have anything to do with the MEST universe either to amount to anything beyond this: it made it!

You say to the preclear, "Well, how do you feel about a car?"

Now, if you can just evaluate enough, you can cut things all to pieces and just ruin them. That's what's wrong with a V. He's busy evaluating all the time, as you'll learn in a moment.

"Cars are all right. What's the matter with cars?"

All right, now what, what then, are we covering here? Are we trying to answer what is beauty? No, we're not because I wouldn't tell you what was beautiful and I hope you wouldn't try to tell me what was beautiful. I hope you might instead tell me, if you were talking to me about it, tell me an experience that you had which you thought was beautiful. All right, that's fine. Don't hold a gun on me if I don't think so, too.

Hm, no pay for the auditor.

You see, that's just a matter of viewpoint. Hm, beauty has something to do with beingness, then, doesn't it? It's way up there; it doesn't have much else to do .. .

In other words, those mock-ups: And you people that are having trouble getting mock-ups out there, all you had to do was just keep putting mock-ups out there. They're disappearing faster than you can put them there. They disappear almost before they get there. And so you don't think you're putting a mock-up there, but you are. And if you'll just sit there and doggedly keep putting it back, although you — it's gone so quick you don't even see it — all of a sudden one will appear. And it will be there for a split instant and the next one will be there a little longer, a little longer, a little longer, and after you'd put another three or four hundred there, you'll probably even get a single mock-up, and then you can get two mock-ups, and all of a sudden you've got two terminals.

But do you know, at the same time, that the fellow says, "I'm no artist." He says, "I'm not an artist." He means by that, "I don't paint; I don't write; I don't compose music." What is he doing that might throw this into question?

But they disappear as fast as they're scarce. And you get mock-ups as fast as you disabuse your engram bank of the scarcity of them. Because they actually — what happens is evidently the engram bank drinks up the mock-ups. All right.

He might be living a very beautiful life. Because the biggest and widest canvas that you could paint would be the canvas of a life. A man could actually achieve the level of being a professionally beautiful liver. He could. There are some people you are glad to know simply because they seem to lead a beautiful life. It's interesting, isn't it?

So we have scarcity versus abundance. So the first scarcity is a scarcity of terminals, and everybody gets one terminal. Well, there's a way to work out the one-terminal proposition. You can work one terminal. Just get and mock-up on a three-levels principle, which I'll go into right now, admiration of one terminal. And there you're really working on two terminals, but that's all right. You just admire anything enough and it'll disappear.

So people say we have to go hungering after art through painting, writing and so forth, and what are these people doing? They're writing about, they're painting about, composing about life. You're sitting there with this enormous canvas and all the raw materials to put together into what is actually a piece of art. How would you combine these things to make them interesting? And that would be art, for you. But art, again, is not something that you would describe or even get that didactic on but you could do that. You're overlooking, then, the primary field of art which would be to live beautifully.

For instance, you can correct a mock-up in various ways and one of the ways you correct a mock-up is a very simple way. You simply keep admiring its defects!

What's beautiful? I don't know, some bum walking down the street with lice may think he's living beautifully. That's art to him. All right.

If you say, "Now, we put a mock-up there. Now, we'll admire the fact that it isn't there." It'll appear. There you're doing the same thing. You're feeding form and energy into the bank until it stabilizes. Only this time you're feeding what the bank is really hungry for, which is to say, an admiration particle. The bank is really hungry for those admiration particles or any kind of a particle because they're collapsed lines and it's just like throwing a dry sponge into the bathtub. If you then put it into a dry — a dry sponge into a dry bathtub and you started — you throw a cup of water, you'd just be utterly amazed at how much water you could throw on that sponge before you got anything into the bathtub. Well, that's what your engram bank's doing.

So we know, then, the eight dynamics but we aren't saying that there isn't another universe which runs by different rules and laws. We aren't saying that and we aren't trying to cancel out that factor.

Now, you could use Admiration Processing, and you could process on single terminals, but it's not necessary to do so. All you have to do is use double terminals, mock up your terminals identical, and you have automatically sympathy and mimicry. Out of that you'll get your engram bank run out.

But it isn't one which impinges suddenly, strangely upon this one so that you put this eraser down and if you look quick under the eraser you would see the other universe. There is no fourth dimension! The man who invented it is undoubtedly a great mathematician but logically he's a fool. There is no fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is not time.

The goal is not to run out an engram bank but it happens rather incidentally and automatically that you do run out the engram bank. So let's skip going into the past. We're just trying to find present time. We're going to find present time by curing scarcity.

There isn't any consecutive coexisting superplane strata of universe which is running conversely with this one and strangely influencing it. I can tell you that for a fact. "Yeah, that's odd," you say, "Well, how the hell would you know whether that's a fact or not?" All right, how the hell do I know? I just know it's a fact.

And, of course, there's going to be scarcity every time you have a dependency. Believe me, the surest way in the world to get something scarce is to depend on something else for it.

Now, there is a before and after this time strata because this time span is an interaction on a — on a three-dimensional basis but it's an interaction in three dimensions. It's very interesting. It isn't inexplicable. Time is not even vaguely inexplicable. It's just co-action. And if you could suddenly halt that co-action, you would drop back or ahead of time. With the techniques which we have right now, you can take a preclear's concept of time and you can make it go wheeeew. He's ticking off seconds — pock-keta-pock. You've just taken him that far out of the time stream. Or you can give him a head-on shove into it — you might say — the co-action, and boy, the seconds are starting to go by rrrrrrrrr. It's quite an experience to have time shift.

I don't know whether you've had any experience in sending children to stores to buy things. But you know doggone well that you'd get a lot more from the store if you went yourself.

And time isn't just a concept. Time is co-motion of beingness. You've got anchor points out, something else's got anchor points out and they go this way. That's time. Now, it's as mechanical as sucking a lollipop. Let's not get into any balderdash about the fourth dimension and plutons suddenly going to walk out of the deep earth caves and wave magic flags over the mystic Rosicrucians. We've had too much hidden influence already on this subject. The second we've said that, we've said Case Level VII — the hidden influence.

Now, there's one of those — that's scarcity. Scarcity occurs because people want attention. People want attention; they say, "Look, my attention is valuable. Therefore you should want my attention." And so they say, "Well, you don't want my attention? Well, it's so valuable it's now going to be scarce."

People get so they won't look at this MEST universe. They're in its time strata stuck and they won't look at it. Why won't they look at it? They won't look at it because there's a hidden influence that's very, very dangerous. Only they don't know what it is. Well, we know what it is. It's — the hidden influence is that there is something bad about it.

"The only one of its kind in the world" is the first sales talk, and that's given in terms of attention, so you get attention there.

All one has to do is think there's something bad about it and there'll be something bad about it and something will become an influence, and then if you hide it, it's a hidden influence. We'll go into that in just a moment or two.

Now, it is — it's fabulous what we go into here — it's very simple but you start depending on something for attention, now you're really done.

So, therefore, you have to avoid that. So after a while you won't perceive and you won't have anything to do with any perceptions and you use MEST universe perception instead of anchor points to perceive because you're afraid of the hidden influence and you won't put your anchor points out. All right.

Just try and mock up members of the family and make them — each one of them — look at you, and watch what happens to their head. They're this way and you say, "Nope." From this way zzzip. And you say, "I'm going to make Mama look at me, one way or the other" and you're just not able to. And after a while, after you've put enough mothers there .. .

Now it doesn't — it's very simple, then. The hidden influence is the modus operandi by which you make somebody drag in his anchor points. "It might bite you." And the hidden influence may exist in present time to such a degree that present time might bite you so you go into the future to go into the past and then go into the past to go into the future and both trips miss present time.

By the way, the trick is just to put two mothers there and make them look at each other; it'll run it all out. But if you were just to mock-up single Mama to make them look at you, they're just — heads are all over the place. Papa, same way; teachers, the same way.

Where's reality and where's the MEST universe? In present time. Step I is vaguely noticing present time. By the time you get to Step VII, present time is a gone duck. It's — every moment, you see, has the label "present time" on it. And if a fellow starts taking this from memory in terms of facsimiles and uses his memory alone to experience, he gets into the very hideous situation, the very trying and horrible situation, of having this: At no time is he able to perceive comfortably anything.

In other words, one couldn't determine how much attention he was going to get unless he shot people or something.

He never can do this then. There are reasons why he does this and they're very simple reasons why.

But one could do this: One could walk up to the buffet — one could walk to the buffet and take the very fancy china vase that was imported by Uncle Jociba from Canton and smack, he got attention. There's various ways of getting attention. That's not a good way to get attention because you're immediately told that it was bad, you see? "That's bad to do that, so we mustn't do that, so that's bad." And right away we find out what's bad over there. Breaking that vase was bad. And so we're not supposed to break vases, so after this, if we got spanked enough or something, we got corrected; in other words we got run back into the past so that we could go into the future.

So what are we trying to find? Are we trying to find the future? No. Are we trying to find the past? No. We're trying to find present time. We've been trying to do that for a long time. We were trying to do that in the good book — the first book that came along I mean — a good technique in there said, "Come up to present time."

The correction of a child — now get that as a definition of what dives a psychotic back into the past — it's correction. He misfigures for the future. He knows he's been wrong because loss has occurred. Now he wants to remember it so that in future futures, he will not again make the same mistake and lose. So he's predicting the future from the present by addressing the past. And this is very silly.

Do you know, if you walked through a sanitarium today, and suddenly say to each patient as you pass them, "Come up to present time," do you know that a certain small percentage of them will suddenly turn sane, just like that — pang?

That's experience, I know. And the whole world runs on it, I know. But if you take the level of determinism of individuals who have been corrected a great deal and the level of determinism of individuals who haven't been corrected a great deal, and you'll find out that you have two entirely different levels — the one who hasn't been corrected will have a much higher level.

One girl, for instance, had a terrible case of acne, been out of present time, no communication with anybody for just ages and ages and ages, and they're out and auditor said to her "Come up to . . ." You know, he said to the psychiatrist, "You know, this stuff really works. Now here's a patient, for instance, 'Now come up to present time,' " he says to this girl.

The MEST universe does the most uncompromising correction; it's much worse than Mama.

And she shook her head for a moment and looked at him and gave a big speech that night; she hadn't talked to the — the staff had a party that night and she gave a big speech how glad she was to be there.

When you step out into space in the MEST universe in a body, you fall. It corrects that error right now by punishing it. That's an error and you mustn't do that and so you'll remember the fall and therefore you won't step out into space again. The answer to that is "What you doing in a body?" All right.

Acne went away in three days; she stayed sane. Two years later, she's still sane. Interesting isn't it? Very important stuff — present time.

Now, our first level of thought on the thing is, is here is an individual. All right, here's an individual. Has he got any space? No. Has he got any energy? No. Has he got any thoughts about anything? Not particularly. Has he any havingness? No. What's the first thing he gets? He gets some space. That's the first thing he gets; he gets some space.

Well, then, people must be avoiding present time because there must be something bad about present time.

How does he get some space? Well, the first way you get some space is to put out some anchor points. And he could put out as many as eight anchor points and he'll get three-dimensional space. If you don't believe it, count the corners of the room, you're sitting in three-dimensional space and so you put eight anchor points and you've got three-dimensional space. This is spacation.

How can anybody communicate not in present time? Hm? Do you want to communicate to the Roman era? No. Well, there's a lot of people stuck in the Roman era that are trying to communicate to you!

Just by getting a preclear to view a space and put out eight anchor points and hold them stably in that space, he gets the doggonedest feeling of pleasant, happy serenity that he's had in a long time. Why? He's not depending on any other anchor points to hold his space out for him. He's there, that's his space. And he — so he's got some space.

The communication lag index, then, is the test of whether or not the preclear's in present time. Therefore, the communication lag index is the test of present time of the preclear. And you can get his sanity as fast as you can snap your fingers by estimating the communication lag index.

Well, that's the original way he got some space. Then he got argued into depending on something else for an anchor point to hold his space out for him — first mistake and first identification.

Now, you can deal a fancy table on this; you can be very mathematical; you can sit around with stopwatches and probably some of you ought to. The next thing you know, we would have more data than they ever had in psychology. But we could sit around with stopwatches and actually measure the average communication lag index and then the rest of the conditions of the preclear, and we'd have the most fantastic thing.

You could say the first trick and the first betrayal on the track was somebody coming along and taking one of your anchor points and putting it in their pocket and putting up one of theirs in its place.

Do you know that your — you would say, "Hello!" to your preclear and press a stopwatch, and your preclear would say, "Hello," and you press the stopwatch and you look at it and you would say "Case Level VII, let's see here now . . ." That's all there is to that! Because it's that accurate.

All right, now you know there is somebody out there, and you've got a vague idea that says, "This — this shouldn't be" so you pull in the anchor point and you want to look at a picture of this fellow, and of course this anchor point is a picture of this fellow and it's a different picture; it isn't the fellow. And so, but you don't know that yet — and so you put that out again, you pull in another anchor — there's two fellows out there. There must be two fellows out there because we've got two different pictures. Then all of a sudden, maybe you'll find there is only one fellow out there and that means you've been wrong. That means something is wrong with your anchor points. There's something wrong with the way you handle your anchor points. And there is the introduction of the hidden influence.

For the first time you have accurate, completely accurate stopwatch mensuration of sanity — communication lag index. And what establishes it? How close is he to present time! That's all. Because he has to come from where he is to present time to you. Only he isn't anyplace but present time. He's just trying to be someplace else.

What's the hidden influence? His taking one of your anchor points and putting one of his own pictures in its place. That would be something like that, you see? That would be a hidden influence. You didn't know that had taken place, so later on you're wrong.

In other words, what is the length of time it takes a message to get through his circuits to an answer platform and back out through the circuits to the voice box, and so forth, and that is the measure of the number of circuits he has which are interposing between himself and present time. That's so simple.

In the same way, you look around the MEST universe and you find you're missing some data. You think you have to find that data in order to find out what's going to happen. You think you've found that data. You bring this data that you have found into your bosom and you compute on that basis, and you say, "It's perfectly all right to have John over for tea tomorrow." You compute on that basis. But at 10 o'clock in the morning, your good friend John is found to have written a check against your account which overdrew it and has just left for the country with your wife. Boy, were you wrong!

You want to know how sane some preclear is? Well, now develop this as a knack. You don't need a stopwatch. How sane is a preclear? He is as sane as he answers rapidly with this exception: he must answer sequitur. Remember that one.

Now, what's one do when he's wrong? One says, "Where's all the data? There are hidden influences around here, because I can't be wrong, my anchor points can't be wrong, so therefore something's wrong and there's something influencing my anchor points. There's something disturbing my space by influencing my anchor points and what it is I can't find out, but if I yank them all in and take a look . . ." And there is the first analytical loss reaction. After a while every time you lose something you immediately drag in all your anchor points — Pam!

Because some preclears will answer you very rapidly not sequitur; it doesn't follow in logical sequence to what you said. Now you want to watch that, you see.

And so you find a person who has lost too much with his anchor points all stacked up in front of him, coal black, he's hiding behind them, he's protecting himself with them and he won't put them out again. Why won't he put them out again? Because they won't come back, you see? He's already lost something.

So the communications lag index is the length of time it takes to get a logical answer. If you get a completely illogical answer or one that does not fit into present time at all, even if you get it very rapidly, that doesn't count.

Well, if he puts out more anchor points, of course, it follows, naturally, everybody knows, he'd just lose them. It never occurs to this fellow that he can manufacture any God's quantity of anchor points required. He could fill up a universe full of anchor points. No, anchor points are scarce too, eventually. And it's on the scarcity of anchor points that a person loses his ability to perceive!

Now, what do you do with this case? Well, it's just how non sequitur it is, because he's automatically your last lag case. He's not there at all. He must be spun in. This is your disassociating case — insane.

Of course, one wants them scarce because he's afraid of what he'll perceive now after a while! Everybody's been telling him it's bad over that way.

You say — if you walk through the halls of a sanitarium, you say to some-body, "Good morning, good morning" and this person says to you, "Beautiful coach, isn't it?" You could say, "Good morning," and they'd say, "Coach." That's a very short lag index except for one thing: it doesn't follow in logical sequence. So there's your only place where your communication lag index requires any judgment. Is this preclear logical in what he says if he answers rapidly? Does it — does that logicalness hold up a judgment on the whole line? No, no it doesn't, because the person who answers with very, very rapid response is very easy to spot. If he answers rapidly, he will also be rather well-mannered, well-dressed, he will be interested in life; he will be getting something done and he probably won't be a preclear. Do you get the idea? All right.

And this is your next theory — the theory of the "hidden influence" comes about in this fashion. Somebody says it's bad over there. All right, you might have found it out yourself. You put out a bunch of anchor points and you pulled them in and you were looking at them, and you said, "My, isn't that a pretty sewer! Well built and so forth. Pretty odor, pretty strong; interesting, very interesting."

So this other person that just suddenly snaps back would be the occasional specialized case. And there's only one of these specialized case: it would be a manic-depressive in a manic state. And that would be the one case which might fall out of line on you.

Somebody comes along to you and says, "That's bad! You don't want that! Why, nobody has those!" And of course you want to be kind of same as other people, because then you get admiration and anchor points and interests and randomity and these other desirable things and you say — you say, "They — they don't have these? These — this is bad, a sewer? Oh, I don't see — see anything bad about it. What's bad about it?"

And how many of those cases would you find over a review, an application of the communications lag index? Well, you might find two of them out of a hundred. Terrifically fast, hysterically fast response, with no sense about it at all, and that would be your exception. But you understand that that again would be a completely closed line. They're not in present time. They're hysteria cases.

"Oh!! It's just bad!! I mean, it's got germs in it!"

So that leaves you forty-eight [ninety-eight] that you can measure with complete accuracy.

And you say, "Germs!? What's germs!?"

You say to somebody, "How are you, Bill?" And he says, "Well, um — ummmmmmmm," he hasn't answered you yet, see, that "well" is a stall, "Ummmmmmmm — I don't know my — my — my corns uh ..." He's answered you. What's your lag index? Up to the time he gets up to the subject of the conversation. That's a test of sanity.

"Well, germs are something that you can't see."

Now, if you go around a sanitarium, you'll find out — it's very interesting — that you will always eventually get an answer, but it might not be given to you and it might not be in the same day. And hardly anybody has patience enough to stand around and measure this fact or not because it might be next month.

And you say, "Oh, I don't want anything to do with that."

I knew a patient one time — I said "Hello" to him once, and as I was there about two weeks later and he looked at me very fixedly and he says, "Hello." He sighed this deep sigh. I'd probably kept him on the thin edge of nothing all that time trying to give him a chance to give me back this hello. All right.

You've been wrong and there's something bad over that way.

The communications lag index is the next thing we want to know any-thing about, and that is an immediate index of whether or not the preclear is in present time. Where are we trying to get the preclear? We're trying to get him into present time. What techniques are we using? We're using the fastest techniques to get him into present time. Okay. And then we're using techniques immediately after that which stabilize him in present time.

Now the next time you have some anchor points in the vicinity of a sewer and so forth, you say, "It's a sewer. It's bad." What do you do with this? Do you put this facsimile where it belongs in the file of perceptions of things perceived, or do you throw it away? Or do you suddenly say, "That's bad, I've got to get rid of it," slap, and close its terminals with no admiration?

Now, do you think that your thetan is in present time necessarily? Oh, no, he's not. Not necessarily at all. And furthermore, do you think that this thetan is going to get out of a body yesterday? No, he's not. A thetan is never going to get out of the body anyplace but in present time. So get your pre-clear in present time and then tell him step out, and that's all there is to it. All right.

You're looking at it with one terminal, it's the other terminal. You say, "That's bad;" it closes. So what do you eventually wind up with? All the pretty pictures? No, you don't. You wind up with all the bad ones because you won't look at them anymore, and this is not taking responsibility for, you see, same thing.

We have to know, then, something about communication. And, of course, if we enter the field of communications, we have to then go into affinity; we have to go into reality. And we get ARC. This is the same old ARC we've been studying all along except all of a sudden communications has just suddenly loomed up and smacked us in the face as about 89,000 times as important as reality!

So you say, "Those aren't mine, and I don't like those, and that's bad, and I don't want anything to do with them, and if I put out anchor points they'll just come back with bad pictures because everybody knows, so I won't put out anchor points anymore because I'll just lose them and they'll only bring back bad pictures anyway. And I'm — I'm very weak and I have to depend upon everything and if I depend on everything, everything will be my anchor points for me."

Reality is an offshoot from communications. Reality is composed of agreement or disagreement. Reality is then made up of sympathy or no sympathy. You agree with something, you mimic it. You disagree with it, you don't mimic it; you want it to mimic you. And so we get the contest for admiration evolves out of a disagreement.

And boy, if there is any willingness in this universe, it's to be your anchor points for you. Look how willing I am! Well, anyway .. .

All right, so we've got that fairly well solved. And this is the whole emotional scale here — affinity — this is everything from apathy all the way on up the line.

Here we have here, then, a picture of dependency on evaluation. And if you can get somebody else to evaluate for you long enough, you won't know anything and you won't have any anchor points.

And what do we finally wind up having? We have a very, very simple package there.

One of the fastest, easiest routes I know to Step VII is just to let every-body around evaluate for you unqualifiedly along this fashion: from the past into the present.

Now, we're dealing with life on all of the eight dynamics except one. We're dealing with — on the sixth dynamic, the MEST universe, and that is M-E-S-T, and that's the sixth dynamic, and that's the one you fall over, because you can't reason with it, you see? It's evidently unreasonable.

I'm not doing a job here, I might say in passing, a job of evaluation. I'm handing you data. You can drop it or pick it up or use it. You'll find the data is effective because it's track data. I am discussing track data. I'm not telling you how bad it is or how good it is. That's the type of evaluation which I am decrying here, is the type of evaluation that tells you, "You didn't know how bad it was." That is real bad.

Now, you may think that it's interpersonal relations that are causing all of your trouble. Well, you can always get a man shot. In other words, you can always get killed or commit suicide as the final solution to a personal problem.

So you have somebody around you all the time and saying, "Well, you really don't remember but when you were three, you were the worst little child in the neighborhood and when you were five you chased somebody down the street with a butcher knife. And you chased this person all the way down the street with a butcher knife and the neighbors had to pull you off and everything, and my, you don't remember this?"

But do you know that you can get so tangled up with MEST there is no solution at all? No other place can you really get as tangled up as you can get tangled up with MEST. MEST is very uncompromising. You're standing under a cliff and it decides it's going to fall on you and it falls on you. Well, it didn't even decide to fall on you before it fell on you. Therefore, MEST is relatively unpredictable.

Of course, the truth of the matter is, it didn't happen. It might have happened to Mama who was telling you this or it might have happened to Uncle Joe. It just didn't happen to you. But there was so many chilluns around that Mama got kind of confused. For some reason or other mamas get confused. They seem to have a habit of being very confused about data. And they keep feeding the kid data that the kid really doesn't — the kid knows it didn't happen.

And as we look along all of these eight dynamics we find that the major aberration which we have to fight would have to do with the sixth dynamic — not the second dynamic.

And — but the kid, because it's Mama, and they're very dependent upon Mama for food, clothing, shelter, admiration, everything, you see, they have to take that datum. It's not right, that datum isn't, and they can't make it fit but that's what Mama says. Because Mama is so many good things, Mama also becomes all kinds of evaluation. She can evaluate what's bad.

We've got, we've got the second dynamic all worked out with Admiration Processing and eating and — oh, it's fine, it's beautiful. We've got beautiful techniques there and it's twice as good as anything we ever had before and we're throwing that away. Okay.

And the next thing you know, the child depends upon Mama for evaluation, so he's got big circuits set up which are Mama circuits. And if you want to restimulate this preclear, he can hear Mama's voice talking to him giving him some advice every once in a while.

Let's just look at this, then. The mission of processing, mission as an auditor, is not to try to find the future for somebody or knock out the past or anything else. It's just to put him stably in present time; and that's the goal of the auditor. The goal of the auditor: pc to PT. That's all.

Every once in a while you'll get a preclear who walks around the streets and his mother's voice is going on and on and on inside his head. He doesn't know it's his mother's voice; he's got some strange voice inside of his head which tells him what to do. Socrates had one. It's not so uncommon. That's a demon circuit. All right.

Now, what — it so happens that this does restore a person's self-determinism. Because if he's exactly, precisely in present time, then he could move, step completely out of the MEST universe, if he wanted to. The door out is always there. It's facing you immediately in present time. But you're never facing present time! See, I mean, you've always got to figure out what's going to happen for the future. That's logic.

It evaluates for him because he has to depend on something else to evaluate, so he'll carry an evaluation mechanism along with him. That is just one of 8,767,533,622.95 methods of being logical. That's logic — mechanisms by which you can evaluate for you about the future out of the data from the past. And you figure you can be logical and logical and logical and logical and more logical and more logical and if you can think it out and figure it out, if you just think long enough, and you think long enough, you'll what? You'll find that hidden datum.

Person's logical enough, he'll be here forever. All right.

Now, basic logic runs like this: Let me give you an example of basic logic. Here is the genesis of logic, evidently. Terminal one looks at terminal two, and terminal two insists on looking at terminal three. And terminal one wants terminal two to look at terminal one, of course. All right.

The goal of the auditor, then, is pc to PT.

Because there's a scarcity of attention, you see? That's the first scarcity. So — it never occurs to him if he wants attention that bad, why doesn't he put a mock-up out there?

How do we do this? We do this by taking M-E-S-T as being the most probable reason why he is out of present time, and M-E-S-T is of course present time, so let's just take the sixth dynamic and as we worked with pain and unconsciousness in the first book, let's not worry too much about what we work with in the second book, because in terms of pain and unconsciousness we've got something better than that to work with, but let's work at the same time, with something as concrete as the MEST universe and sort of let inter-personal relationships go to hell. That's a sensational sort of a development, isn't it? Let's turn around and face the MEST universe.

Anyway, he's got this terminal two which keeps looking over here at terminal three and he's trying to distract the attention of terminal two so that terminal two will look at terminal one.

Well, you couldn't — you wouldn't dare face the MEST universe. You'd get mired down, for God's sakes, if you didn't know some of these things about the MEST universe. All right. All right.

How's he do it? He tries to look pretty, doesn't work. He tries to hum a tune, doesn't work. Little boy walks on his hands on top of the board fence, doesn't work.

We're going to get, then, the sixth dynamic. And that's composed of matter, energy, space and time.

So he figures and he figures and he figures, and one day he finds out that terminal three is vulnerable to the fact that terminal three customarily, every night before he goes to bed, takes a bath. He's a sissy in other words. And now he can tell terminal two, "Look how bad it is over that way. You shouldn't look over there at three."

Scientology 8-8008 stresses these definitions:

Now, terminal two still insists at looking at terminal three. He'll figure out some more reasons and some more modus operandi by which he can make terminal two look away from terminal three by convincing terminal two that terminal three is not to be looked at.

Matter is havingness.

See, at first he tries himself to invite the curiosity and desire for attention and now he's going to enforce it. And he enforces it by inhibiting attention on terminal three.

Energy is doingness.

Well now, he just might as well excite terminal two's char — terminal two's curiosity is liable to be so excited that they hadn't been really looking at terminal three before, but now they're just anxious and hungry to look at terminal three. That's the backfire on this technique.

Space is beingness.

All right. So he says — this doesn't work. So he finally finds one that does work, and he says, "You know, he has outbursts of fits. Any time he's liable to have a fit." And he finds some other kids and they corroborate this. They say, "Yup, terminal three has fits." Terminal two says, "No." And looks at this person but doesn't really want to look at this terminal three because this terminal three has got what? A hidden influence. He's liable to break into fits at any moment.

And the co-action of havingness in space is, of course, time.

So you don't want anything to do with that, so terminal two may or may not then look at terminal one. But if terminal two looks at terminal one you can get an interchange of communication which is itself energy. And the business of living has to do with that interchange of energy amongst beings or amongst mock-ups.

Nothing much to that. Havingness is time, you might as well say.

You can have just as thorough a flow by throwing out a whole flock of mock-ups as you have live beings. And every mock-up is probably just almost as alive as the people. It's very interesting. This universe multiplies like mad; talk about rabbits. Anyway .. .

So you're going to study here beingness as more important than the other two because that's the first thing you have to have before you can have anything else. So we're going to hit our stress on beingness. Is that simple?

Here is something much more important. Your mock-up, by the way, doesn't have the duration that bodies have and that's about the only principal difference between the two. Anyway .. .

Sixth dynamic — MEST universe — and then we're going to take out of that, we're going to select space as being the thing, and we find out space is beingness so we're interested, then, in beingness which is space.

We have, then, a distraction of attention and an invitation of attention. In other words, the desire to disperse attention when fixed and the desire to fix attention when dispersed is in essence the highest level of control.

Now, we have to know that the MEST universe is double-terminaled. You never got an electric current under the sun, moon or stars, you never will get an electric current anyplace under the sun, unless you've got at least two terminals. You can probably get an electric current out of three, six, ninety; but you at least — you must have two terminals to get an electric current.

One comes then into possession of attention by dispersing it when it's too fixed and fixing it when it's too dispersed. And if one can do this with somebody else's attention continually, continually, continually, why then you get this situation accruing of control. And what do you know, that's hypnotism.

But don't you try to put up those two terminals without putting a base under them. Because the first moment that you start to get a current between the two of them, the two terminals will snap together, and you — won't be any current flow.

Very interesting, but you get fixation of attention and you get buried data and so forth. Why? Because of hidden influence. That's all. You got more hidden influence.

Now if you don't believe this, go home and take your electric fan to pieces and take the case of the fan off and take the magnets inside the fan and lay them side by side and run some current into them to get them to turn some-thing, and they won't do it. They'll just flop around the floor a little bit and then they'll stick together and that will be nothing, then you won't have any motion — stop! And that would be two terminals collapsed.

So, not only bad now at terminal three, but it's bad over at terminal sixteen and it's as bad at terminal eighty-two and it's bad at terminal infinity and the next thing you know it's bad also at terminal two. Terminal two then has it bad all the way around, so terminal two has got it so bad all the way around, there is hidden influences every place that are liable to cave in because it's so bad.

Or you could get more adventurous. You could go down here to the local power plant and you could insist that they dismantle one of their large generators and take its two huge electrodes — two fields — and slap them together just to find out if they'd operate without a base, and again you'd find out that you needed a base.

What's the hidden influence? The hidden influence is, you bring in an anchor point and find out it has something bad, so therefore you don't want to look at it so you rig up some kind of a mechanism so that you get a look at an anchor point before it has come in and looked at, you see — a test look at — and the test look at says that's bad so you set it aside and you say, "Well, that's — something about that." Now you don't say what's bad about it, but it becomes a hidden influence so the entire memory track of an individual becomes filled with hidden influences because he is picking up things that are bad.

Well, we're drawing all roads going to Rome here. Self-determinism is ARC. ARC is self-determinism. A person gets a complete freedom of determinism, he gets a complete freedom of ARC.

Then, you control people by hidden influences. I had a capitalist tell me one time. Capitalism is a barbaric sort of a philosophy that was once practiced in one of the more ancient countries which has since decayed. But it's an interesting philosophy. It has to do with the fact, if you can make every-thing scarce enough and scare everybody enough, you can own everything.

Simultaneously — oh, I covered this in much earlier lectures and material, the material's around — it should be rather obvious, by the way: energy is composed of ARC and emotion is composed — I mean just the general emotional reaction is composed of ARC. And you go right on up and you draw it: every effort within the effort within the effort within the effort within the effort and you're still hitting ARC, ARC, ARC, so you go right on up to the top of the Tone Scale and you look at the top of the Tone Scale and you find out here's self — complete self-determinism. So complete ARC would be self-determinism.

And this capitalist, who was a very famous capitalist, told me one time, "Well, the trouble is, you're not making it scarce enough. You really want to..."

And as you come down the Tone Scale, self-determinism decreases in the same ratio that ARC becomes nonfunctional.

You know, I thought Thorstein Veblen was talking through his hat on a lot of these things and so forth till I started to associate with the pigs — I mean the fellows. And I was perfectly capitalistic for a long time; I'm not communistic now, I don't care for either side of the same dichotomy, thank you, but anyway .. .

All right, so we go down Tone Scale on this and we find out that self-determinism ceases to exist. We go up Tone Scale and we find out it does.

The point is — the point is that this was true and I mean, all this thing about the capitalist indulges in fear and scarcity and if he can get scarcity and fear going, why, he's all set and he can control.

Now, what's ARC combine into otherwise? Do you know that you could figure out the whole of mathematics just taking ARC, and you could work — actually work them together, because the three things combine into what we know as understanding.

And here was a very successful capitalist telling me that what I ought to do with Dianetics and Scientology was to make it very scarce and then use only that material in it which scared people. Then it would be successful.

Well, it's all very well to have self-determinism, but what would you do for juice? Well, evidently you could just say it's there, but there's a specialized way of making it in this universe.

"Now, what the hell do you mean, successful?" I said.

Therefore, that person would have self-determined energy if he could himself make energy. How would he go about making energy? He'd have to have two terminals to make any energy that would apply to anything in this universe, and that has to be on a base, so self-determinism is the ability to hold two terminals apart.

"Well, you'd sell lots of books!"

The first thing you have to know about auditing: the ability to hold two terminals apart.

And I said, "Well, what's successful about that?"

In other words, the housing of the motor, or its base plate, in holding apart the two terminals which give you current in the motor or generator — they're held apart by a determinism and if they're not held apart, they snap together and you get no juice.

And he said, "Well," he says, "you'd make lots of money."

So, we look and find that the motor is fastened to a concrete floor which is determining the distance between the two terminals, and holding them in place so they have to discharge one against the other, and the concrete floor is sunk into a planet and the planet, by centrifugal, centripetal and gravitic force, is held in orbit around a sun which is on course and held in orbit by the gravitic influences of other suns in its vicinity, which is all held together into a galaxy which is part of the island universes of galaxies which is in juxtaposition to other island universes of galaxies and where do we go? And throughout this whole thing, we find that the sun and Earth are two terminals. That this sun and another sun form two terminals, and in the absence of terminals, you get no space. So, in the absence of self-determinism, you would get no space and no energy.

And I said, "What can you buy with the money?"

And we find a person very low on the Tone Scale has his space collapsed on him and he doesn't have much energy. Well, what's the trouble with him? Well, his self-determinism is poor.

And he looked at me and — like I was crazy or something. And he says, "You can buy — you can buy — what's the matter with you?"

Well, how would you remedy his self-determinism? Well, you'd better remedy his self-determinism first by teaching him to hold, one way or the other, or make it possible for him to hold two terminals apart, and hold them fixed in position. And if he can do that, why, he'll go right straight on from there because that's the first step in the creation of space, is two terminals. So we have to know about these two terminals.

I says, "Well, I don't need all that money."

Now, between the two terminals we have a communication line. The first and most basic line is a communication line between the two terminals. Well, that would be energy. That's the first step into energy, would be the first communication line between two terminals. But before energy there is this between the two terminals: One terminal gives the other terminal attention. They have to give each other attention even if only a split instant before the first current is transferred. So therefore, attention is senior to current. Attention is senior to flows and so it can be handled.

And he says, "Well, what's the matter with you?" He says, "Success — money!"

You have, then, perception having as its first condition, attention. And a person who is having trouble perceiving as a thetan, then, must basically be having trouble with fixing the attention of other people, other beings, other terminals in general and he, in turn, cannot handle terminals which he puts out, so he doesn't perceive. And that's all there is to that.

And I all of a sudden found out that I had challenged the two, identified terminals of capitalism. And what are they? "Worth is money" and that's all. Do we go on from there anyplace? Do we look any further than that? No, we don't have to look any further than that, because we've got it all figured out and it's right there.

The whole subject of communication is the subject of perception. The first and basic communication, speech, is a symbolized package of perception. Words, you have learned, mean certain things in terms of perception, and so you use words instead of referring them all and boiling them all down to this and that.

Only people could be starving, you know, and you could have a whole pile of gold coins there, and there isn't a single thing that you could do with the gold coins but make bracelets. I don't know if you've ever tried to eat a gold bracelet or not.

For instance, I say, "boiling them all down," gives you the idea of stuff reducing, you get the idea you see ... It's fantastic. You go through some-body's mind and just get them — get the rush of pictures which accompany a word. All right.

Commodity, consumable commodity is worth something. Building material is worth something. Money isn't worth anything except as it will buy. Well, what do you know. Here is a philosophy where the money is the thing. It is the thing! I mean it — it isn't anything the money will buy. It's — it's it. We stop right there at that point.

So we have, then, conditional to communication, two terminals. Conditional to self-determinism we have two terminals. So we have conditional to good perception, two terminals in communication, don't we? In other words, these are just all working out one against the other, and we're at crossroads here and that crossroads has to do with perception!

What's this got to do with scarcity and abundance? Well, the scarcity begins to be the thing. What's this fellow got? He's got scarcity.

But if you can't hold two terminals apart, you can't conceive — perceive, and you couldn't conceive of space in which to perceive. Because what's space?

Have you ever seen a Case V start telling you rather proudly about his lack of perception? He's the worst case . . . A scarcity is now the thing. All right. Well that's — that's what it comes down to. He has become dependent upon his own scarcity. For what? For attention!

Let's go right into that immediately; what's space? Space is a viewpoint of dimension and that's all space is, too, by golly. Let's not embroider it any further. Let's just — it's right there — space is a viewpoint of dimension. You should be able to work this out for yourself from that.

You can say with honesty that a Homo sapiens or a thetan will do any-thing for attention. Anything — bad, good or indifferent. And when it gets too scarce, he goes to the doggonedest extremes.

It's a viewpoint of dimension and it takes two terminals. How do you know there's space in here? Well, you — this — this room has got fixed anchor points. So we better know that space is a viewpoint of dimension and that anchor points make up the boundary points which a person puts out to say, "That's space." We call those anchor points. He anchors some space down by putting out points.

Upscale he will get attention by being ethical, admirable, honest, just, ethical in general, because he's got an enormous abundance. He's got an abundance of attention. In the first place, he doesn't need much attention. He can get attention and therefore on these other matters he isn't under terrific stress.

And every time he puts out a point from his viewpoint, he's putting out what? He's putting out a terminal. So with the first act of space, we've already made a preparatory act to get energy, to get communication, to get perception — with the first action of space! Isn't that interesting? We're right there, here. You make space, anchor points. What's an anchor point? An anchor point is a terminal. Well, what's a terminal? A terminal is what you need in order to get a perception. So what's the first condition necessary to anchor points? What's the first condition necessary to perception? What's the first condition necessary to self-determinism? What's the first condition necessary to survival? Being able to hold some space marked out.

He starts going down scale and so he can only get attention by saying, "It's bad over thataway," and finally he can only get attention by being bad right where he is — by knocking something off. And so you get the dwindling spiral and you could really count — this dwindling spiral of attention is "What will a person do to get attention?"

You have to be able to do that and then you could perceive.

You see the terrible extremities some people go to. Some people will even solve problems relating to the mind to get attention. Anyway, anyway .. .

Well, we go right from that and how does an individual perceive?

We have, then, something that has been scarce all the way down the line. Mock-ups do two things, incidentally; two very, very wonderful things. The mock-up put in present time brings the preclear, whether he likes it or not, into present time, and if he makes enough mock-ups, just like that, he will eventually come into present time. They won't run anything out or any-thing but he'll just get used to being in present time. He'll say, "You know, it's not so bad in present time. I always thought I was back here in 1495 but here I am in present time with a mock-up."

Well, he looks out there, and he takes a look. That's all. How does he take a look? Well, he puts out some anchor points, and would you say pulls in a picture which exists there? No, he doesn't. Because there isn't any picture there. What he does is put out some anchor points and he takes the picture with his anchor points, and then he pulls the anchor points into himself, and then by a new current of anchor points, he inspects the picture which he made with the anchor points. Do you get the idea?

The other thing it solves is scarcity of attention. You can always have mock-ups looking at you. There's no difficulty in getting a mock-up to look at you. It's all you've ever had to look at you anyway. You had mock-ups.

And he says, "Oh, I don't want this one, so the devil with it." He's got anchor points out here someplace else. When he pulls those anchor points in, the actuality is that the anchor point is the impression. The anchor point becomes, then, obviously the thing which it perceives. Quite important because that tells you the first fatal identification on the track.

You mocked up a mock-up over the person who was looking — you were looking at who was a mock-up anyway but it was your mock-up that was giving you attention, and this was stimulated by the fact that the person was giving you attention, which permitted you to put a mock-up over him again. But if you were good enough, by the way, you could put a mock-up over him so much that you made them turn the same way and face you with your mock-up. That would be pulling their head around with an energy beam. You actually could do this. This is not a very involved thing.

An individual identifies MEST universe objects with his own anchor points. He gets the idea they're the same thing. He thinks something he sees out there and his anchor points out there are the same thing, and that is his first identification and it's a sudden and it's a fatal identification and it's the first mistake he makes on the track! From there on, he's gone.

But the dwindling spiral, then, is the scarcity of attention which is measured by, for the auditor, and here's another little point you can put down and remember, with a communication lag index of how sane is the preclear. Let's take a look at his concentration ability. What is his ability to concentrate? What is his case level? These two things are comparable — his ability to concentrate and his case level are right there, and what is that measured by?

He can suppose after that, that this is really all his own universe or he can suppose it's none of his own universe, and he can do all sorts of things with this, but the fact of the matter is, he's never going to perceive again as a thetan until he disabuses himself of this identification and learns once more to handle independently his anchor points for their proper purpose of perception!

Of course, a person can concentrate, you know, with his circuits, so to speak. A person can also sit still, totally blank; that isn't concentration.

When he learns to use his anchor points for their proper purpose of perception once more, he will see. And your V's main difficulty is he can't see as a thetan. And the whole category of steps is really upset because it can't see. And it won't be able to see until it gets itself in a situation where it can throw out some anchor points. And it can only find present time when it's able to throw out anchor points.

Duration of mock-up. But this doesn't work exactly in ratio the way the communication lag index does. The mock-up is there and it's gone; it's there and it's gone; it's there and it's gone. You all of a sudden hold — haul ahold of this preclear and you say, "Hey, wait a minute. Make the next one stay there." All right, it wasn't that you had to feed him mock-ups, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang! because he was so good at it and so forth and so on. They just didn't last any longer than that and he had to cover up the fact they wouldn't last by the fact that he had to slap new ones down there all the time and he didn't want you to know he was doing this so he just kept — he just wouldn't hold one. Simple, very simple mechanism.

Now, you would be completely amazed what people do in lieu of anchor points. There are more systems being used for trying not to communicate than there are trying to communicate.

Concentration, his concentration really was poor. But let's — let's get this; what am I talking about when I say concentration? Now immediately this will make lots of big sense to you. Concentration on present time, please. What is the preclear's concentration on present time? It's how long he can hold a mock-up mocked up in present time.

When a person is using anchor points for perception, a person is directly perceiving present time. When a person does not use anchor points for perception, they find out they have to adjudicate what is happening in present time by what has happened in the past. Therefore, they need (and only then need) experience; which requires what? Which requires facsimiles. So they have to hoard facsimiles, so they have to depend upon facsimiles, and so they use facsimiles.

By the way, people can hold up mock-ups mocked up back on the track or into the future sometimes when they can't hold them in present time. Your first impulse of your preclear is to put the mock-up into the past rather than in the present.

And if they were able to put out all the anchor points they needed to put out in present time, they would not need facsimiles and so we get the overuse of facsimiles and the dependence upon the past to adjudicate the future.

So their concentration is the duration of the mock-up in present time. And you'll find out this measures pretty well with various other things, such as their mechanical aptitude, and so forth. And it will also be how good they are at handling their anchor points; throwing their anchor points out and bringing them in. It tells you that pretty well.

One only needs to really predict the future if he's trying like mad to protect something. He's worried about what happens to something. In other words, he's afraid he's going to lose something, so he has to keep figuring the future, figuring the future, figuring the future. And what's a V do, what's a VI do, and what a VII does? A VII has quit, by the way. But a V is thinking, "What am I going to do about the future now, what am I going to do about the future, now? Let's see a ba-da-ba-ba-ba-hum-hum-hum-ba-da logic-logic-now-that-that-that's a-so on-so on-and I figure-figure-figure-figure-figure."

How much blackness there is in the face of the preclear has very, very little to do with the case, by the way. It is a coincidence. How much loss has this person suffered? This person has suffered as much loss as he has a density of blackness surrounding him. He has lost as much as he is surrounded by blackness. So that's incidental. It's incidental because the blackness is too easily banished. You can banish the blackness and still not have your boy in good shape, see? So let's not concentrate on that factor of blackness or occlusion as being much of an index or measure of anything, you see?

You get him on the couch, and you say, "All right, now go to the beginning of the incident," and so forth. And he'll say, "Well, this reminds me of the time, and I wonder if I run this what will happen."

Now, let's use, then, our communication lag index and persistence of the mock-up in present time or controllability of the mock-up in present time as the ability of this preclear to be in present time, and gauge our case in that fashion.

He's so busy running what he's thinking about running, he's so busy thinking about "thinking-abouting," that he never gets a chance to run any-thing out of the bank! And he's very logical. He's terribly logical.

Now, give you just another brief, little statement here on the factors we should know mechanically. Now we have to know these various definitions here that I've given earlier this evening. We should know them very well. How much of a definition do we need for reality? We know reality is agreement and disagreement. Now let's add something to that. Let's say agreement is ability to co-act with or mimic or be mimicked by.

The basis of logic is to get two anchor points facing each other and get them in disagreement but in agreement. See, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang; that's a fixity of anchor points.

If you were in complete agreement with the MEST universe, you would be the MEST universe, wouldn't you? Well, now you could be the MEST universe, then, two ways: You could be it by self-determinism or you could be it by enforcement or inhibition. You could be it under your own will or because you had depended on it to such a degree that you had been forced to become a slave in it. That would be two kinds of beingness, then, wouldn't there? There would be the beingness which you determined and the beingness which you were forced to be. And this would be determined by whether or not the beingness was elected on your own self-determinism. The ability to be, by your self-determined action would also be measured by your ability to un-be by your self-determined action. So the ability to be and the ability to un-be should be comparable.

What's Fac One? Well, they turned two — two sluiceways of sound through a camera and, of course, it makes a fixation of terminals, and boy, there that sits. And that's an argument, a big argument, only the victim loses, but he sure knows he's been in an argument. All right.

And then there would be the enforcement or inhibition of being: pre-vented from being or enforced being. When we take the sixth dynamic, we would find out that the MEST universe by its own mechanical action eventually forces a person to be something but it doesn't let him un-be it; or it prevents a person from being something and won't let him be it. It makes him un-be it so that he can never be it.

Now, out of that comes logic.

In other words, you have then what with the MEST universe? You have duration of condition. In the MEST universe you have a duration of condition. In self-determinism you can select the duration of condition. You can be some-thing for a long time or be something for a short time or you can un-be something immediately or you can un-be something slowly, anyway you want to go about it, you see?

Now, there is another reason why all this takes place. Now, I'll go into this because we're following down the mechanical operation right now. We're not following down the ideas behind this.

But the MEST universe on enforcement and inhibition, your dependency on it, makes you be it or prevents you from being it, and then if you are it, you can't un-be it and if you aren't it, you can't be it. In other words, it makes a static or enforced condition.

And we find out that one has to have anchor points in order to perceive and that the minimum number of anchor points a person could have to perceive would be two. He'd have to have something to perceive the something or other with. In other words, to perceive you would have to look at something. Well, there has to be something to look at the something which is being perceived, you see? So we've got to have two.

And self-determinism depends upon the person's ability to be or un-be anything. Be or un-be anything.

And — and you've got to have two. So what did we find is the first thing wrong with the V, VI and VIIs? There is only one of them! They can't see; of course, they can't see, the damn fools! There's just one of them. How can they see? I mean, this doesn't appear idiotic to you yet; it ought to!

And now we'll go into some — well, let me tell you the rest of this, so these things — the goal of auditing is the pc to present time; the sixth dynamic is the most aberrative, beingness is space; you need two terminals and space is a viewpoint of dimension; anchor points are these other terminals, which — it doesn't matter whether you call them an anchor point or a terminal, interchangeable term. And we've got a fight going on, a scarcity versus abundance on all dynamics, in any dynamic interactive, and we have dependency versus self-determinism on all dynamics or any dynamic.

It takes two terminals to see, doesn't it? And the V knows he's one, and he's got some MEST eyes and these MEST eyes reach out and make some facsimiles for him to inspect. Well, there he's got two terminals. He's got what the MEST body made and what he is to perceive with. But when you ask him to look out of his head or look around or use his own perceptions, he sees only blackness. Why can he see only blackness? Because there isn't a second terminal there!

All right, let's look this over a little bit further, and we find out that self-determinism depends upon the ability to be. And we find out that beingness in [is] space, so we have another index of the sanity of an individual, is how much space can he make. That's very simple, how much space has he got and how stable and well controlled are the things in it? Because if the things in his area are not stable or uncontrolled, he's not making them in his space. That's all there is to that.

How could there be a second terminal there? By his putting out an anchor point. And as soon as he put out an anchor point, there'd be a second terminal there and what do you know, he could see! But he doesn't do this. There's only one of him, and so we've got to study in all of this, scarcity.

He doesn't control the space but he's trying to control the object. And you wonder why these mock-ups just go all over the place and so forth. They're in something else's space. He doesn't have space out there.

Scarcity versus abundance — all dynamics. One of the first things you should probably do to a V is get him to mock himself up and bury himself as a matched terminal. It would probably cheer him up no end. He'd say, "What do you know." He'd say, "I can really face the idea of my dying and being buried."

Make him build some space. Make him put a couple of anchor points out there. You say just — this guy maybe can hold a couple of anchor points, you see, and he still can't control the mock-up sufficiently, so just make him put down a couple of guidon flags out in front of him, like that, and plant them — mock-ups.

He's so accustomed to there being only one of him, you see, that he's in hot water continually.

You just say, "Let them stay there, fellow."

There's just one, and there will only ever be one because there is a scar-city of him.

And he'll sit there and he'll "Ahhh-ahhh-ahhh-ahhh — yeah?"

And there is a scarcity of everything else.

"Well just hold them there."

Why does he know there's a scarcity of everything else? Because he's lost it all, and that's why you get loss as occlusion, see. He loses the second terminal which makes everything go black. See, I mean, how idiotically simple can we get here.

"I don't like this," he'll say.

I mean, it takes two terminals to perceive. This terminal has to have something to perceive, so it perceives that terminal, you see? Now, that's the only light there is, to be very simple about it. That's all the light there is.

"Go on, hold them there."

Now, what do you think you've got? You've got no perception. I mean, this — this was too difficult, this problem. You've got no perception here, you see. He goes around complaining that everything is black and, of course, everything is black, he's got nothing out there to perceive.

"You know," he'll say, "I'm getting uncomfort — . No, I'm not either. I don't know if I like this or not."

In order to see that wall, you have to put some of your own anchor points out in the wall and then forget that you've put them out and then you say, "That's a wall." Isn't that simple? You mock up this whole wall just beautifully and you get this whole wall and there it is; you've got a terminal and you're looking at it. But the V has got himself kidded that these are not his anchor points because he has a complete dependency on all the eight dynamics and that's the other factor we have to know.

What have you done? You haven't told him what you've done. You've just made some space. You put two mock-ups out there, you see, and you made some space with them and he's in that space whether he likes it or not. Therefore, you get Matching Terminals as something which very covertly makes space. You never mention it. You set up the terminals out there and let them run out.

Dependency versus self-determinism.

You're letting them discharge actually. You're letting them discharge energy but they are really making space.

And there's the conflict of a V in terms of thought. It's the conflict of the little child; there is the conflict of the adult; the conflict of the student; the conflict of the soldier; the conflict of the president; the conflict of the king, and I dare say, if he's in this universe as solidly as he appears to be, the conflict of God himself.

So the first law of beingness: before you can be anything you have to have space. If you can control that space, you can be anything you want in it, if you can control the space.

Let's take a break.

And controlling space would mean to be in it or not be in it. And you see controlled space — it's very surrounded space down in the jail, but it's not controlled space. You can't be in it or not in it at will. Sometimes you go down and want to go to jail and they won't let you in. Sometimes you go — you don't want to go to jail and they have you down there, I mean, they're very unhandy about this whole thing.

The whole philosophy of the MEST universe is what you don't want, we're going to give you and what we give you, you don't want. All right. Not much difference between that and jail.

Anyway, we have beingness then as another key.

Now, hold your hats on this one. This is a new one to you. It's kind of snuck up on you; I'll give you it in the last few minutes of play, and let you spin all night, hah!

Now, to be anything, the thetan also has to be able to be that space, doesn't he? And your first condition of being anything is to be a space, isn't it?

Well, that's real good, but you see, ambition is the desire to be some-thing, isn't it? Well, the first definition of theta is that it is something without location, size, shape, mass, wavelength, weight. I've got news for you. You know, you're never going to be anything.

And yet, look at this. You think it's bad to pretend to be something. Oh, you think that's real bad to just pretend to be something, not really truly be it. Everybody is — everybody sneers, you see, at something that's only pretending to be something.

The best a thetan can ever do is to try to be something or pretend he is or think he is something. A thetan never became a body. He will never be a body, not if he practices for eighty billion years will he ever be a body. But he can pass through a period where he is pretending successfully to be a body.

What determines this pretense of success? Do people believe he's a body? Oh, they believe him, then he's successful. That's the only test.

So have you ever been able, all the way down the track, to reach any ambition toward which you ever attained? No sir, because you could never be anything, you see? You couldn't be anything, but you could only try to be convincing as something. And you knew that all the time. You knew that all the time. You knew you could never really be anything, but you could sure put up a good show.

And the hidden datum that is waiting, the hidden influence that is waiting to smack any preclear, is that one. That's waiting right there to jump him, hard. He's never going to be a body. He never has been a body. He isn't John Doe. He never will be John Doe! He can only try hard to be John Doe!

And he goes on and he tries hard to be John Doe but he never finishes the end of a cycle of action. He never puts a completion, a complete and absolute stop, on the line.

John Doe dies and the thetan pulls out and says, "Well, that's that." That's interesting, isn't it? He didn't die. He even stepped out immediately before the end. He never became John Doe.

Now, you want to know why your past life might be covered up and you don't remember it? Now that's a bad failure; you knew you were never that one. But you're going to be this one so this one you're willing to remember because it hasn't yet been proven to you that you can't be it.

Any day now, you're going to wake up and find yourself John Doe; that's a big ambition. Any day you're going to wake up and find that you are the person whose name you bear. My, that would be satisfactory.

Now, you're going to ask a V to move out of this body? He's trying like mad! He's got himself 90 degrees convinced that he's part of the MEST universe; that he is this body; at last he is something! No, he's not!

You as an auditor come along, and you're going to back him up and say, "You know, you're not!" Uh-uh, he isn't going to like this. He'll just try to be harder.

Well now, there's a reverse action on all this beingness. That which a person tries not to be, he becomes. That which a person tries to be he fails to become. Because that's the MEST universe, it has reverse flows in it, and it works backwards.

Why is this? "It's bad over thataway," you see? The MEST universe action "bad over thataway," dependence, so on. You bring something in. You say, "That's bad; I don't want anything to do with it," and what do you know, you find yourself saddled with it.

Why is that? It's because you wouldn't take responsibility for it.

So what have we got here? Between the thetan and a body we have a closure of two terminals. Between the thetan and any form of beingness, we have a closure of two terminals.

So anything the thetan says, "I never under God's green earth am going to become a motorman. I wouldn't be a motorman or anything of the sort!"

After he's — if he's mad enough about this, you see him a few months hence, and so forth, and you say, "How are you doing Bill?"

Bill says, "I'm doing all right."

"Where are you working Bill?"

"Oh, the Street Railway Company. I'm a motorman."

And you say, "Now, wait a minute, now wait a minute, Bill. You said you were never going to be a motorman!"

"Well, I know but I didn't . . ." and so on. He's got a lot of rationalization about this whole thing.

It's a lead-pipe cinch that he's going to become a motorman!

Now, if you kept saying for years and years and years, "There is one thing I'm never going to be under no circumstances, would anybody ever find out because it's the one thing I'm never going to be, I'm never going to have anything to do with bodies! I don't want to be a body. I don't want to have any-thing to do with them. I consider them vile; I consider them dirty, nasty, mean, ornery, they're no good, and so forth, and I'm just never going to be a body, not as long as I'm around!" He's a body!

Why? He says that he won't be something. If he won't be something, he abandons an area of space and takes no control over that space and, you might say, might as well say, he made a sort of a vacuum in it. A vacuum which he's trying to pull out of. Any anchor point he has, then, he's pushing away from that space and if he pushes away hard enough, all of a sudden any points that he has left over will draw him right square into the space and he becomes a motorman or he becomes a body.

Why? Because he won't be a body. That's the one thing he wouldn't be.

So we find the girl who is going to be a good girl, you understand. She's not going to be a bad girl; not like — not like Amy Lou. Amy Lou is vicious, wicked, mean, ornery, a dog and so forth and besides has a terrible habit of putting her hat on and then taking her hat off, and putting her hat on all the time.

And you meet this girl a little bit later and she's taking her hat off and putting her hat on again and taking it off and putting it on.

And you say, "What's the matter with you?"

"Oh, nothing."

You find out she's having six affairs too many and so forth. She is going to be a good girl, she was. She was trying to be a good girl.

If you can get somebody to try to be good hard enough then, if you can just really get them straining at trying to be good, they'll kill themselves off with badness. And if you can get somebody just being downright determined he's going to be the most vicious person on Earth, he winds up an angel. It's fabulous.

Why? Because that is evaluation and a determination which is based upon adjudication of what is good and what is evil and the thought that you should abandon and that you cannot tolerate anything that is (quote) bad (unquote).

What happens when you abandon something? It just means you refuse to take responsibility for it. And what does that mean? That's just refuse to have any anchor points in that area. So what's that do? It just creates a complete vacuum in that area, and the first thing you know, they're there.

Now, because you won't touch that area, you won't try to get out of it. You don't want anything to do with this area so you're not going to put out any anchor points, aren't you? You just, "The heck with this area; I don't like this area; I don't want anything to do with it!"

By the way, did you ever look at a body on a dissection table? Some of you here may have dissected a few bodies. I see a couple of faces.

Well, you see, if you were — supposing you had a bunch of guts and livers and kidneys and hearts and lungs and so forth hanging up in a closet, and you walked in in the dark and walked into them. Would you like that? Hm?

Where are you now?

That's just the one place you wouldn't be, isn't it? See? So a fellow gets in the midst of all this and he isn't even going to put out a single anchor point or do anything about this at all because he don't want to touch it!