This is November the 30th, morning lecture.

This is November 30th, afternoon lecture.

This morning, going to try to give you some behavior application of what you have been getting here the past couple of weeks.

I want to give you some data which is consecutive with this morning's talk, and put you up there where you can operate on a very high echelon of processing. You'll find its liabilities, but one of its liabilities is not "limited." That is to say, these processes I'm giving you are unlimited processes. That is to say, they can go on being audited and audited and audited and audited.

Want to repeat first, because this is Monday morning, the highest level of operation of what is humorously referred to as life. And that is, it knows; that's its highest level. Doesn't know anything, you understand — it knows. That's its potentiality of anything. It's a high potential.

The thing that makes a limited process is one which addresses one single universe continuously, or one which validates one particular set of barriers more than other sets of barriers, or one which validates exclusively barriers, or one which validates distances to the exclusion of all barriers. And when you do processes which either validate no barriers or validate specialized barriers, you then come up against a limitation of process.

And the highest level of what you're into — the game called mest universe is a game requiring barriers and limitations. This isn't the only kind of game there is, but I won't befuddle your wits by trying to use, in MEST language, how many other kinds of games there are.

Why is this? It's just a simple fact that knowingness knows what it most concentrates upon. That's the simplest rule in the whole book. Knowingness knows what it concentrates on. Therefore, if it concentrates on a hidden meaning, it knows that there's a hidden meaning. If it concentrates on a super deeper significance, then it knows that. And what we're trying to get knowingness to do is just know that it knows, which is to say, know that there is a certainty.

There are other kinds of games that have nothing to do with distance, they have nothing to do with barriers, as you see them.

You give people certainties in very many ways. Some of these certainties wear off and some of them don't wear off. One of the certainties that doesn't wear off, of course, is death. That doesn't wear off that particular life, you see. It just ends it and that's an end of cycle, so that makes a good certainty, and people rather court that certainty. They have an idea the best thing to do if you're going to have a certainty — if they can't have any other certainty, why, they can at least get killed or die, and they know there's a certainty about that. So they have a tendency to try to end a cycle.

But this game with which you are concerned right now, in this universe, is a game which has to do with barriers. And this is the only game which you have to solve in the pc.

Now, certainty of time, certainty of place — these are all important certainties. You'll find that when you use the mind, the memory, too hard, and validate its rememberingness or validate too much its computingness, why, it winds up remembering or computing. Here is Q and A.

Of course, there are first these barriers to knowingness, and then barriers to perception. And both of these barriers constitute eventually a barrier of space. So the highest of the operation is space itself. This of course would be the one, then, which you would — most likely to find befuddled in the individual, because it is the highest and most common of all these barriers.

It isn't that one is simply a lifeless, spineless sort of a thing that goes into any plastic cast that is poured for it. It just happens that it — if it sees no liability, particularly — or to devil with the liability, it sees some method of getting interested, it will. And your preclear is already too interested in being a preclear. Well, you just put that down as a fact. If you could get him over being interested in being a preclear, why, it'd be very simple then just to turn him loose. He'd feel happy about it, because he's always been somebody's preclear. In other words, he's been somebody's worry for a long time. And unfortunately, you wouldn't do much for him, so — if you did that, so the best thing to do for him, of course, is to just build up his knowingness and then release his being a preclear.

Any time when you depart from this formula — which is to say, mest universe, a game of barriers — you are adrift in processing, in this universe. Barriers becoming very frequent and considerable, form and re-form; and in any group which is in agreement amongst itself, form at a uniform rate, and unform at a uniform rate. Particles shift and move at an agreed-upon rate. And this agreed-upon rate is time, and there isn't any other time to refer this time to, which of course, makes it a single-terminal proposition and makes it aberrative.

But that release is automatically with the return of self-determinism — you don't have to worry about that at all. And the harder you try to release somebody just from being a preclear, why, the worse off you're going to get.

Now, when we look, then, at any confusion in an individual, it'll be a confusion on the subject of time, because it doesn't have a second time. If there were two times, there would be no confusion about time, because you could always compare time to time of some other kind. Whereas if you do any comparison in time in this universe, you compare time to itself.

Now, if you tell somebody to exteriorize and he busily exteriorizes, and then decides that nobody agrees with the fact that he's exteriorized, he's liable to shut off his perception and go back in his head. This is the way things are supposed to be because he can't see anything else. He can't see that there's any point in it. He lacks imagination. I'll let somebody nose-dive several times like this if he doesn't get some kind of an idea of what he can do or wants to do or is trying to do, exteriorized. And I'll find out that he conceives himself to be leading a rather exciting life just as he is, and sees and cares nothing about any liability connected with it.

And this is something like saying: "Joe is a nice fellow, he's like Joe." "Joe is a long fellow, he's like Joe." "Joe is too short because he's like Joe." And we don't have any Bill.

Well, where it failed there, you see, is rebuilding his imagination. What's his imagination? His imagination is his ability to create. A man who endures isn't doing much creation. And a man who destroys isn't doing any creation. So what's happened there is essentially I've left him parked in the middle or the end of the cycle, somehow or another, as a thetan. If he finishes a few cycles, he'll decide to create some. But if he's got his bank full of unfinished cycles, why, he tries by duplication in the action and business of living, to complete those cycles.

Well, you say, "Joe is shorter than Bill," the second we have Bill. So if we just have Joe, well, we say, "Well, you know he's just as big as Joe and he's as small as Joe and as short as Joe and as long as Joe and as stupid as Joe and as Bill as Joe." You get the idea?

See what he's doing? He's just trying by duplication in the material universe around him to complete unfinished cycles. You see? Now — so of course, he reinteriorizes. He's got to complete these cycles as he conceives they were. In other words, he's in a state of dramatization. So End of Cycle Processing is a necessity in such a case. So don't omit that one. If you omit it, then don't tell me that somebody went back in his head.

So this single — single-terminal proposition puts all sorts of stress and strain on the problem. And it isn't a terminal, you see, it's just a singleness of comparison. So that singleness of comparison all by itself constitutes a barrier.

Now, anybody here who is having any difficulty exteriorizing is, of course, overbalanced on ends of cycles. You've got to finish up these cycles one way or the other. And he thinks he can do it in some subterfugenous fashion, you know? He's actually sold on the idea that by duplicating the actions which have happened to him, he can then be rid of those actions. He's utterly sold on this modus operandi.

Why? Because the fellow can't find out what time it is. The only way he can find out what time it is, is finding out what time it is. And therefore, it's just as easy for it to be 76 trillion years ago in a guy's mind as it is tomorrow.

He thinks that all he has to do is just bump off a few people and all the times he's been bumped off are accounted for and he can then exteriorize, see? He's making things wait on a condition. Now, where does this fit in what I was telling you this morning about nothing and something?

Fact of the matter is, theta needn't be concerned with time at all. The trick is that you ought to be concerned about time; that's the trick. And you shouldn't be concerned about time, because you don't have much to do with time.

And the only reason anybody wants something is so he can make nothing of something. Vicious cycle, isn't it? Everybody's getting dressed for the play and the play never goes on. People spend all their lives in dwindling spirals and so forth, getting dressed for this play. They're acquiring "somethings" so that they can then make nothing of something. And that is the biggest joke of all — because, you see, all they need is themselves to make nothing of something. If they were exteriorized and in good condition, they could make nothing of everything. They could do a real fine job on it.

You are, as far as time is concerned, a motionless viewpoint. You endure forever, God help you. And this endurance is engaged in viewing a shift of particles; the particles are shifting, you aren't. You shift the particles, and you shift the part of the particles which you view — and in doing this, you can become very befuddled, you can think you're a particle and you can play lots of games within yourself; but the point is, is you can see the whole universe simultaneously. It isn't much to look at, it's a whole flock of particles.

And the body — the body is the greatest machine you ever saw. Now, I classified automatic machinery for you a little bit earlier in this course as divided into two kinds — roughly divided into two kinds — actually, there's three kinds. There's one for each point on the cycle of action. But the two main kinds we're interested in is the mocker and the unmocker — the machine which creates and the machine which uncreates. And of course, there's that interesting machine which uncreates before it creates. This is a very fascinating machine. You can get into more trouble trying to process it.

If you see it simultaneously, you'll see all the particles stopped. And then if you see it simultaneously, tickita-tickita-tickita-tickita-tickita, you'll see the particles shifting. There are a lot of particles in the universe, quite a few.

People who have blackness predominantly are trying to keep something bad from happening, which is to say, they're trying to uncreate a condition before it occurs. They spend all their time uncreating nonexistent conditions. And this is a definition of worry. So we get back, and we find that is a worrying machine that uncreates before it creates. They don't do certain things because there are certain barriers, and so we come down eventually to a definition of barriers. See how all those roads lead to Rome? All right.

So instantaneousness is more desirable than something involving time. It's quite remarkable — you're very remarkable, extremely so. You can take something which is agreed upon in terms of the mest universe and find in that thing — you can find in it a method of communication, and you can even string this communication to past time, and you can even understand this. Very, very remarkable.

When you're processing somebody, your goal should be exteriorization. Well, if his certainty is pretty bad, you're going to have a rough time exteriorizing him because then he won't know when he's out. There are lots of people who have various automaticities which fool them endlessly, and they all go by the boards on techniques which invalidate barriers. That is to say, you look six ways for nothing: either progressively finding something on the way in your own, another's or your — or the mest universe, or just reach six ways and find nothing and then sit back after each motion and know. That invalidates barriers. That invalidates all kinds and classes of barriers, including automaticity.

It isn't odd or phenomenal, it's just remarkable because you don't realize you're remarkable. In any society, you're supposed not to, you see — particularly this one. You're not supposed to realize you're remarkable, yet you are.

You use that kind of a development, you can just rule out automaticity as important — if you use that kind of a technique. Because processing auto­maticities is, perforce, of course, a limited technique; because it's validating the barrier of randomity, which is the validation of numerous barriers — numerous simultaneous barriers.

And this remarkableness, unexpressed and inhibited and so on, is simply an inhibition or a barrier, as it is inhibited, to knowingness. You see, that you're alive and ticking at all, is what's strange. Because the enormous force which is leveled against you, and the enormous amount of confusion to which the individual is being subjected, the considerable amount of randomity — you see, if you even stop to think about it, the whole area around you is an automaticity. I've been waiting for somebody to suddenly realize this; suddenly realize this and sort of fall back in a dead faint with the recognition that as far as automaticity is concerned, he has it — ne plus ultra — right in present time.

It is not, by a long ways, an unsolvable problem. But the main part of the problem which you want to solve is the validation of knowingness. Now, there you're validating a condition which is not a condition. It is a native state.

Cars go in the wrong directions, and you've got stuff bonging off you all the time in terms of particles, and going away from you and hitting you again. And the predictability of the environment is quite poor, very poor, as long as you insist on being a single point of viewpoint.

Now, what has then deteriorated the knowingness of the individual? Ah, we have here the essence of this whole thing. Said in the first article, and wrote many, many, many, many years ago now, that the world was — didn't need more hypnotism, it needed less. It needed to be unhypnotized. Well, all right.

You see, you can predict anything you want to, actually, but it's become important that you predict the particles, merely because you're trying to safeguard somebody else's problems, you know, and hold them down. And as long as you have somebody else's problems to safeguard, why, it becomes very important that you predict these things.

What's hypnotism? That is a state into which a person is placed where his concentration is such that his consciousness and awareness is reduced, and he is obedient to other determinism than his own. That is hypnotism. And he is merely obedient to other-determinism. And this is a condition which accompanies all unawareness. And when you say "hypnotism" you're merely making a — you're just remarking on the modus operandi of artificially creating a state of unawareness which can then be impressed by an other-determinism. If a person isn't very aware, he will receive a barrier, and not knowing what it is, consider it a barrier. So in the essence, what we have is a case who has any aberration at all, relatively hypnotized.

Any one of you right now, actually — you're not held by anything, or trapped by a darn thing. You — it's just your own interest — it's your own interest in your body, and interest in, oh, "how bad TV is" and "how horrible the movies are these days" and "what the next murder is going to be." It's just your interest. You hang around, and now you've accepted an awful lot of problems. And you've accepted these problems from Mama — she had lots of problems, and Papa — he had lots of problems. And all these people had problems, and now you got problems. And you try to worry yourself along about these problems.

Now, this is expressed in many ways: Individuals who flutter their eyelids while processing. You watch those eyelids flutter. Occasionally they'll really start to flutter. Well, a hypnotist looks for this as the first induced stage of light trance — the flutter of the eyelid. Well, you've got somebody who's partially hypnotized, then. And nearly everything you are saying to this person is recording on a stimulus-response level. That's an interesting thought, isn't it? Real interesting.

And yet, if you think you detest worry, why do you go to the motion-picture show? All the motion-picture show is, is a whole concatenation of worry. You're supposed to be interested in the couple of people that everybody else seem to be interested in, and you are supposed to go on from moment to moment not knowing what's going to happen next. You don't want to cheat — all you'd have to do, actually, is just contact that reel of film or the remaining films in the cans, and you would know the whole plot.

Now, you expect this person to get better while you have him under a continuous hypnotic trance. Well, this is a little — expecting just a little bit too much. Well, the techniques that it takes to snap somebody out of that level must therefore be unlimited techniques which immediately and at once address the problems of perception or, you might say, the general problem of awareness.

More understandably, if you had a book in your hands, and this book lies there in your hands, all you've got to do is look at the last page and you'll find out who killed him. That's all you've got to do. And yet you sit there with all those pages unturned, not cheating, and going through, so that you can do this. A book in essence is a worry machine. No matter how fine the story is, it's just a worry machine. That's all there is to it. It's — you're supposed to get interested in these people and then worry about them, you see, and not know what's going to happen to them, and be surprised, and go on through to the end, and be very satisfied that you've worried so much.

And awareness can be increased in the individual. This liability occurs when awareness is increased in the individual: He wants to be unaware because if he becomes aware, he can be more easily hurt. It's quite remarkable. If he becomes more aware, he will not have to be in the vicinity of something which gets hurt! You see? That's what makes sense. The other doesn't make sense.

In a super-fictionized society such as the United States of America or Great Britain, these worries, fictionized, amount to a dramatization on the part of people of heroic parts. And then the contest of the society is not to permit anybody to fill any heroic part. This again makes randomity.

But he runs into this mechanically — that if he becomes more aware, he starts to hurt. And so as we start — try to process this case on straight awareness and on nothing else, he quite often will get the jitters, the fidgets, and become rather uncomfortable about this new state of awareness. And after you laboriously have turned on some of the awareness, he'll come back again for his next session with it happily shut down. He's managed to do this in the interim — because his awareness merely depends upon his changing his mind.

And as you look at these shifting particles, these shifting barriers, and the barriers of knowingness — you see, you're perfectly willing to have a barrier of knowingness, otherwise you'd never bother to read a fiction book. That shows you immediately what you're — how willing you are.

So essentially the job of the auditor is to remove from his track those barriers and limitations which seem to convince him that he will hurt if he becomes more aware.

Now, your problem gets down to a point where you've set up everything automatic and then you're not happy about it. And the main reason you're not happy about it is because you can't solve these problems which are being posted at you all the time. Because there are many echelons of these problems, and amongst those echelons is what they call "real life." And real life as defined, just by definition, is grim and serious and terrible, and so you have to take this thing which by definition is grim and serious and terrible, and you have to solve that. It's not grim and it's not serious and it's not terrible.

Therefore, processing which locates him as in a fairly safe locale is immediately of assistance. Processing which renders him less afraid of emotional charges, effort and pain, as well of course, as ridicule and betrayal; processes which render him less worried about these things, again, remove the liabilities from becoming more aware. So these processes you will find in SOP 8-C are plotted on this basis.

The funny part of it is, there's nothing like a boa constrictor or a lion jumping out of a — from behind a rock, or a panther down from a tree, to bring a man up to present time. He comes up to present time with great speed.

First we locate him. And then we drill him on emotions, colors, anything you want to put into the woodwork and the corners of the room and into space of his own creation and into emptiness and so forth — any one of these things. And then, anywhere along there after we've located him (we are locating him with the idea of exteriorizing him), we can give him some idea that he might pick up in a hurry, of his body. So that he won't be too frightened of that, just have him mock it up a couple of times, you see. Mock it up a few times and he's not afraid of his body, and then you try to exteriorize him.

In the past, many philosophers have attempted to solve this problem, and a philosopher never could have solved this problem because it's a problem essentially in terms of knowingness and action. And as long as he just was trying to dwell in the realm of knowingness, and not in a realm of action, he could sit there like Buddha in his palace and worry-worry-worry-worry-worry, and finally let his coachman fast-talk him into going out into the world to alleviate the woes of all these poor people.

If he doesn't do that, well, let's go in for a little bit of space; and let's give him just a little bit more space. Because his barrier is space. He's afraid of space. Of course, space is — all belongs to God. Space is untenable stuff.

He'd been sitting in a palace — no panthers had been jumping on his neck, and no boss had been coming along threatening to fire him all the time — so of course he could be a philosopher. He never did get into any understanding of the situation, the — that's a different proposition.

The biggest barrier in the world — if you were to ask a prison warden the best place in the world for the prison, he would say the moon, some such thing like that. Well, why? It's because space itself would be a barrier. Now, that's the biggest, nicest, neatest barrier in the world for a piece of mest is space! And all space, of course, from the beginning of this universe, has belonged to one god or another. This is essentially a religious universe. And so this barrier of distance, to some degree, has to be remedied in our case.

If you want understanding, you'd better go out and set this body up as a target sometime and pitch it off a high cliff into a deep part of the sea and try to swim amongst a few sharks and, you know, make life a little bit interesting.

Well, while remedying this business of distance, you're going to immediately run into, whether you like it or not — if he's gone that far south at Step III, and he has not exteriorized by holding on to the two back corners of the room, you see, and just holding on to them for a short time and he doesn't come out — his trouble, you can be completely sure by this time . . .

And you find out you never feel better than after you've bested a forty-eight-hour or seventy-two-hour hurricane with the ship going to pieces under you and all the sails blown away and everybody in a frame of mind of mutiny and you're standing there with what little splinter of wood is left for a tiller. And it blows clear, and you say, "Well, what do you know?" Boy, are you in present time.

You see, those are the first three steps, those are the easy ones. That'll take in, though, by the way, about 70 percent of the people who walk up to you. But if he doesn't exteriorize when he's gotten to Step III, Spacation, why, he's a sad case. Because he's fresh out of space, because probably all space belongs to God, and the distance is so intolerable he couldn't possibly stand it. And as you start to run almost anything on him, such as the beginning of Step IV, you'll find him boiling off. You'll probably find him boiling off on planting four flags, Step III. Just ask him to plant four flags and staffs. And you ask him to do this a few times and he gets real stupid.

And the only trouble is, you get a surfeit of this sort of thing with one particular body, and you keep hanging on to all the effort which you have gone to in order to solve immediate problems and worries. And then you get into various situations where the other universe which you are facing is itself too puzzling for words, and is capable of setting off in you — because of the stored effort and emotion in a body — is capable of setting off in you, somewhat on the order of an atomic bomb, sudden and surprising emotional releases. Attacks, you might say, rather than releases, due to the connotation of the word releases — but these sudden emotional attacks; sudden, dismaying, almost indescribable rushes of emotional kickback which you didn't intend to have, and which your body, actually, is not quite strong enough to withstand.

Well now, that is a state of unconsciousness. That's all that is. So there is a working law here: As a person runs out of space, he runs out of consciousness. If he's unwilling to inhabit a lot of space, he's not willing to be conscious. Why is this?

Now, as long as you think you're a body, you don't then think you can withstand much, because you gauge what you can stand with regard to what the body can stand. And the body can't stand very much. You wave a baseball bat at it and you can kill it. I mean, it's very interesting. This is true, the body can't stand up under this.

Supposing you, sitting right where you were, with the ideas you have about pain and remorse and the horribleness of being alive or something of the sort, and with all this — with all these ideas, you sit there and are able to feel all the emotions of everybody going by in the street out there, and all the emotions of everybody in every building adjacent to this. Your area of immediate thought and emotion perception, let us say, would be a quarter of a mile. There'd be an awful lot of people living in you. That right? And it's not comfortable as a thought, not at all. So a person has to be quite aware of his ability to turn off and on emotion, and experience emotion and effort, by those earlier drills.

Well, these sudden rushes and waves of emotion which hit you under stress — particularly in such fields of randomity as the opposite sex or parents — are brought home to you as very, very serious and grim indeed, because you see that your body can't stand these things. Well, you see, you're to a large degree protecting your body, and so you assume, unreasonably, of course — for more randomity — that you can't stand them. And you wait, after such a surge of emotion, to be surged at again unexpectedly.

So although we have a rote procedure in SOP 8 that goes right on down the line and works very well, when I get a case that doesn't exteriorize by the time I've done a few minutes of holding the couple of back corners of the room, and I want to exteriorize this person, I start to remedy the state of consciousness. And I remedy it by playing emotions and location — you know, emotions into the walls and location — along with putting up unconsciousness itself and the conditions of hypnotism. And I just play these one against the other, round and round and round and round.

A man learns after a while that his life is not going to continue as one long afternoon song. There's going to be things happen which are quite bombastic.

Unless this case is entirely hopeless — you have to sort of pry him off the floor to get a word in his ear, or something of the sort, at which time I just start wasting certain types of machinery on such a case, and just hope he'll get by with it. And if the case is out of communication, of course, I try to get him to communicate to the point of recognizing the walls of the room.

Take this thing called love. Somebody is going along very happily and cheerfully — oh, dabbles with the second dynamic this way and that way. And then one day he mistakenly gets a voracity or a voraciousness about eating, you see, and that is, he can't survive if he eats or he — so on. He gets this terrific emotion and it keys in all the times the body has been eaten and so forth, and he's in love!

And if the case is terribly bogged in symbols, and when I say, "Now let's make a green machine," why, the case can at best struggle with what I mean by green — what shade I mean by green and so forth, and what does green mean, anyway — why, you have a case that's in symbols. And he'd just better get used to the idea of pictures, because he's inverted in pictures.

You think I'm now running down the whole idea of being in love. I'm not running down the idea of being in love. That's just one of the more — it's one of the more interesting things to do. If you want to commit suicide that way, it's as good as any other way — bullets are quicker. But here's this emotion, and this emotion was a strange and overpowering thing which an individual found he could not control. Oh-oh! An emotion he couldn't control. And it swept in with great speed and great suddenness and there it was. It was all very nice, and it was a quiet afternoon, and then this girl showed up, or this fellow showed up, and — it didn't have to be sudden, it probably grew over a period of months. And one, one day, woke up to the fact that he was very deep inside some sort of a trap he couldn't quite figure out.

But you can still take this symbol-happy case, and once you've asked him — and please remember to ask him the next-to-the-last list in Self Analysis: "Remember something real." Unless he's terribly adrift there, you just go back up, and that's what I would do with that case.

His concentration on the opposite sex was so intense that he couldn't easily release it, and he recognizes this. Then, of course, in the usual course of events with love and so forth, although it says in the storybooks "they lived happily ever after," they don't explain that "ever after" is from three years, two years — something like this, see? They don't explain their definition of the time. So you'll have time creeping in, you see, undefined.

As far as a case that is simply black, I give them a chance to look at something. I find something they can see. You cure a specific automaticity, and the case does a jump, and I waste a black machine, a machine that makes blackness. And if I can get them to then, so they can actually see the mock-up, I mock them up enduring.

And you have, probably, some beautiful sadness — which is a little bit too strong for even cast iron to bear — crop up, and you feel like you don't want to eat anymore and you don't want to sleep anymore and you can't get along anymore. And in short, you're up against the problem of you can't knock this body off, because it isn't worth having anymore. It's just — obviously it's no — was unable to serve the purpose of keeping that other body in line, and so therefore, if you've got to keep bodies in line with other bodies (which in itself is a piece of nonsense), you won't be able to go on with this body any longer. Such love affairs very often end in suicide, and as a matter of fact suicide attempts are quite often immediately traced to such a situation.

You see, if you can create enough of them enduring, you can eventually bust the cycle on it. I don't care how many this is. I don't know, might run up around five hundred thousand, it might go to eight million, I don't know. But you'll break the cycle there on enduring.

Well, we look this over, and we find out that this is not scarce, this is not rare, this happens quite often. As a matter of fact, it very often happens to somebody before he's five. And he's fallen desperately in love with his mother, and he breaks that one up, and later love affairs lie on top of that one.

There's a very pat method of hitting a blackness case, by the way, is you locate him, and you get him to put in some emotion in things, and you get particularly obedience and disobedience in the woodwork. I mean, he's usually sold on obedience. And remedy these things with them, and then just get to wasting machines that are black, and then run a few end of cycles, and finish a few cycles for them, and more machines in brackets that waste blackness and accept blackness and so on. And generally with this, crack through on the case. And then I just go back to these, what you might call — in poker they call something a "round of roodles," so I suppose this would be a "round of roodles."

Of course, Freud picked this up, and said (of course, searching for deep significance), "This is the only thing that we're shooting for."

You'd just run location versus emotion versus unconsciousness. Location, emotion, effort, pain — whatever you want to put into the scenery and get back, and whatever you want to put into imaginary figures and get back, whatever you want to put into nothingness and get back. I'd just go round and round with that, round and round with that until I had the case kind of straightened up.

The point here is that one is hit by an overwhelming surge of emotion and afterwards he doesn't want any. You couldn't sell him any emotion, actually, if you tried very hard. He's very leery of the whole subject. He is afraid, for one thing, that the loved one who has departed may show up again. He doesn't even know what his emotional reaction would be if this person returned into his immediate vicinity. That's very, very puzzling to him.

And then I would pull this exteriorization deal. It sounds like awful complicated auditing, but it's not. And I'd pull this exteriorization deal on the anchor points. I'd get him to see some anchor points and push them into place. I'd brighten his perceptions up, you see, a bit — up to a point where he could see anchor points. And when he could see anchor points, I'd push them into place and pop him out. That's about the way I would do it. This is a real rough case I'm talking to you about. I mean, this is subzero. There isn't anybody here that bad. That's a fact. There isn't.

He may go on for years till someday he gets a letter to somebody else, or she gets a letter written to her or something, in some way, shape or form, that mentions the name of this other person, or does something about her, or some intimate touch is thrown in there, and they sit there in a state of shock! But what they're shocked about is the fact they didn't perish just because of the recontact. They very often say, "Well, for God's sakes!"

Male voice: Wouldn't be here.

Well, they're like somebody — somebody who's been living, expecting this trap to fly open in his face any moment, and putting most of the energy which he can develop against the lid of it so that it won't fly open and so he won't fall in; then some son of a gun leaves it open and he almost slides in, and he takes a look and there's no trap there. This is an interesting experience.

Yeah, but it isn't — auditing, it isn't — doesn't require much cleverness to exteriorize anybody, and just make up your mind to that. What it requires is some patience, and slow gradient scales. You can actually feel a guy out of his body. You can sneak him out with no perceptions at all.

Now, as we look over this, we find out that these sudden, terrific and unexpected surges of pain, these surges of emotion, sudden unconsciousnesses — this is an inexplicable thing to an individual — unconsciousness. He isn't there at all, which is the very antithesis of knowingness. And he looks over the problem, and the problem is to him too much for him to bear, so now he has something to worry about.

Exteriorization is an easy trick. If you have difficulty exteriorizing people, run brackets of space. And you'll find out that you feel very chary of giving space to somebody else if you have a big difficulty exteriorizing.

There's these inexplicable things which come in on him, and which he has to hold back, and then he forgets what he's holding back and so he's afraid to take his finger off anything, and he starts living a life which is about as carefully plotted as any surveyor ever made a cow path. It just — it goes to here, and it goes to there, and then it goes someplace else, and it goes someplace else. He's measuring his whole life out with a transit, you might say. And his problems have compounded to a point where he can't even find the cow path anymore but he knows there is one, and he knows that it has its exact position somewhere, so he just doesn't touch anything. He goes into a complete withdrawal mechanism.

The whole idea of giving freedom to somebody while you are not yet free is antipathetic to your own ideas of survival — unjustly so. And that's usually what hangs a guy up. He just doesn't like to see all these thetans flying around while he's still nailed down. He doesn't do it very consciously. He just tends in that direction. There isn't much trick in exteriorizing somebody. All right.

Any moment, these emotions may hit, you see. Any moment Gertie or somebody may suddenly show up in the vicinity, or Bill might suddenly appear, you know, and so on.

Now supposing we wanted to take these — these are very same material I've been talking about here. I'm not leaving you adrift in any way, because I'm not — there aren't a bunch of loose ends left over from what I'm saying. There isn't a bunch of stuff that's suddenly going to turn up tomorrow, you know, that kind of thing. I've been talking about these techniques and writing about these techniques for a long time now, and very often trying to make them a little simpler, drive them home to somebody's communication line, but little else. All right.

A little boy, a little girl very often won't come close to a certain street corner anymore where they've had a fight. They couldn't stand up to that one. And so they begin to avoid the universe geographically, and they begin to avoid these barriers. What are these barriers? These — the barriers — the worst barriers are the ones that jump at you, or jump away from you suddenly.

Now, we look at this problem. We look at this problem of here is somebody who is inside his head. Well, we start out on the basis that we're going to just move him out of his head, and then we start working him on the basis we're going to move his head off of him. And if neither of these two techniques work, there are real good reasons why not. He — one, he can't exteriorize because he's afraid of his environment, what it might do to him, which means he's out of space. And he can't take the body off him because he's got to make everything endure. So we've got to solve those problems with him, that's all.

But in common experience, you find that these things actually go back to a very few and very simple basics. For instance, we find out that duplication is a very, very fine part of processing. Why? Where does duplication show up in (quote) "real life" (unquote)? Well, the dramatization of the facsimile is what we used to call it.

Now, there's umpteen skillion ways to solve these problems, but those are the basic problems. If we can't take him out of his head, and we can't take his head off him simply by having him mock up his body in front of him and unmock it an awful lot of times — you know, till it gets to the point where he can unmock his body right where he's sitting — why, we've each got lots and lots of answers to this. And sometimes I give you many more answers than you can digest. But that's quite surprising, since they all go back to the same point, which is that people who are not perceiving are people who are unaware. People who are uncertain as to where they are, are people who are unaware. In other words, they don't know. Well, you keep asking this — the auditor keeps asking this preclear to know.

Now, in order to put anything there, it has to be made and unmade, and made and unmade, practically at the speed of light. And for something to be solid, one has to be able to make and unmake things. Life begins to be very unreal when one no longer can make things do one of, and all of, three things: which is create — he can't create them, or make them persist, or destroy them. And there are your three conditions, are that he creates something, he makes it persist and he destroys it.

Well, let's examine, then, the road to knowingness, and we find out that it is barriered by impact. You see, you could know there's a barrier there, which leads one eventually into knowing by some other system — which is to say, by facsimiles, by subterfuge, by covertness, by books, you know. And the other one would just simply know. You know?

And he gets to a point, finally, where he can't do one or another of these things, or — and he does the others less well, and what he'd have to do to rehabilitate this is (he knows this, he operates on it instinctively) is to duplicate it — duplicate it somehow.

Well, what do you mean by knowing? All right. There's this fellow who has to go and read a book to know what's in it. Well, he has to be able to see to read the book, you see. And he has to be able to translate symbols in order to read the book. Well, let's take a level of knowingness of somebody who does not know the symbols, does not know the book, and we have a theoretical individual who doesn't even have to know the book exists or where it is, but would know what was in it. See? Now that's knowingness.

And so we get such things as the overt act-motivator sequence: something is done to him, he should duplicate it. And if he duplicates it, however, if he doesn't duplicate it often enough in real life, he naturally just throws what he's trying to duplicate into restimulation, as any preclear will. So it wasn't that working out one's motivators was bad, it was just that one couldn't find enough victims. And the — he then starts to get what you call motivator-hungry. He's done an awful lot of things, and these things haven't been duplicated on him. In other words, nothing runs out; everything stays in on this sort of balance.

Now, the kind of knowingness of which people are afraid is this kind: uncontrolled knowingness, other-determined knowingness. For instance, if you're going to feel every emotion within a quarter of a mile of you, just willy-nilly, without anything to say about it, you don't want to be in that quarter of a mile, that's all. If you're going to experience every mistake and every argument and every pain and injury within a quarter of a mile of wherever you are, you just don't want to know about them.

What is the effort of somebody going down the street and giving somebody else a lot of bad news, trying to give him worries? He's just trying to duplicate these worries.

So, it isn't that you had better be in a condition where you are strong enough, and have enough willpower, and have enough endurance, and all the other answers man has been fed — you don't want to be in any one of those conditions. The kind of condition you want to be in is so that you know selectively, without geographical area.

What happens — remember Hippocrates, I think it was, one of the old race of doctors — used to say that a patient was never well until he'd told about his operation five times. I think that was supposed to be Hippocrates, but that's in medical science — and they weren't operating on people in those days, but that's all right, we'll let it go by. We won't question these people too closely, they have their own little world.

You could know selectively. You could know how somebody feels, or make him feel. You don't have to feel how he feels.

Now, we have this problem of trying to duplicate. You know if you can just duplicate it often enough, you'll be able to handle it. If you have enough kids, you'll be able to handle it. See how that adds up? If you could make enough people into bums, then you can handle it. If you can be made into a bum often enough, then you can handle it, you see? Duplication.

Now, a lot of people getting this described to them will hit some low band of the scale and just put on their brakes, you see, and erect a new lot of barriers or something against this, and then say that they "know," merely because they don't have to feel.

But when one begins to depend upon the universe or the chance — which is randomity itself — to do his duplicating for him, he of course gets into trouble because this is handing over one of the most essential portions of self-determinism. Which is to say, that if you have something and you lose it, you should be able to duplicate it.

I had the most remarkable case one time, gave me quite a dissertation. This case was — oh, very widely, I'm afraid — hated. Very widely. And had ruined a great number of people. And yet was insisting and hammering the desk on the subject of being at 10.0 on the Tone Scale, and was furious about it. It's interesting, isn't it? Here is somebody who is just pouring out at the maddest rate in the world, l.5ism. And what this person's mad about is that anybody would suspect that they are any less than 10.0. Fascinating.

And the way you make up something, is just to duplicate it and make it vanish and so on, up until the point where it begins to persist. So we get the whole problem of life actually on this business of duplication.

It tells you where the case was. The case probably wasn't even at 1.5. Case was spun in somewhere. Spun in on some low band. Probably the harmonic — the first harmonic below 1.5. But that was completely in, so that it was riding as a kind of a manic. Interesting case.

It's very funny, you start getting somebody wasting teeth in brackets, and if he wastes teeth long enough — and just waste teeth — he will find out that the body gets so relieved, that they get up to a tone level where they say, "Whee! Let's make everything and everybody into teeth." And you get — that's their big ambition, you see.

Well anyway, we look over — we look over this business of awareness, and what we mean and want to have is selective awareness. The person who is hypnotized is in a better condition than one who is entirely unconscious. Because the hypnotized person at least is fixated upon and concentrated upon the person who has hypnotized him; to the marked degree that if someone else passes between the hypnotized subject and the operator, as he's called, the beam, you might say, of hypnosis is liable to shift. And only then would you get cross-hypnotism.

Now they've gotten up to a point where they think they can duplicate enough to be out of the duress of limited space in which they're placed. And that is the one reason a person tries to duplicate. He wants to get out of the duress of limited space or he wants to get into a limited space and out of the duress of too much space — either way — and he does it by duplication.

There are many, many such interesting cases. You have an operator who has hypnotized a subject, and somebody walks between them and then the operator doesn't realize this until he snaps his fingers and very amusingly can't wake up his subject — can't wake him up. Well, the fellow is hypnotized by somebody else then, and the thing for the operator to do is to ask him, "Now, let's see, did you transfer to anyone?"

Now, duplication is the flow of creation, and duplication is the process by which one — a thing persists. So we get into creation — just once is good enough. See, that's creation. It doesn't matter — creation has nothing to do with endurance or duration.

The fellow will say, "Yeah. Yeah, there was somebody else, somebody else in the room."

Now we go over into persistence, which is the center part of the curve, and we find out that one must duplicate and then unduplicate, and duplicate and unduplicate. So if you actually got the whole curve in action, when you're making something endure, you're having create and destroy. And if you get a repetitive create-destroy, create-destroy, create-destroy, create-destroy, you will eventually set up an automatic create-destroy. You see, you take your finger off of it so that you don't have to worry about it anymore. Or you can at least bring it back into a complete self-determinism.

"Well, who is it?"

It all depends on whether you want to take the motorcycle down the road, or the motorcycle — you want the motorcycle to take you down the road. And your intention is what regulates this, it isn't something that happens automatically. Things don't just automatically fly out of your own orbit, no matter what you do. They don't fly out until you say, "Beat it" — the truth of the matter.

"Well, it's Joe."

Male voice: Intention.

And the operator has to go and get Joe and say, "Wake him up."

Intention, that's right. What's your intention? Is your intention to go on being self-determined, or is your intention to go on being and start to be other-determined? See, which is your intention? And that's about all that establishes the difference.

Sometimes he — the subject — isn't that explicit, and you just have to remember who was in the room and then ask each one in turn. Of course, there's easier ways to do it, such as a bucket of ice water — but the point involved here is just this: that an auditor has a tendency sometimes to overlook an awful lot of the finer mechanisms. He doesn't have to work with them. And sometimes when they appear, they startle him. You know, they're inexplicable.

By the way, intention itself doesn't establish any high order of action. Intention is just choice of two determinisms, which is self-determinism and other-determinism. We find out when people have given away too much self-determinism, made it other-determinism, if their intention was to continually do that, that they suffer from it. We find that.

You know, supposing an auditor knew nothing about facsimiles. Supposing he knew nothing about whole track, and all of a sudden his preclear starts babbling about flaming suns hitting him. And he gets him out of that successfully one way or the other by orientation — Orienting Straightwire. He finds out where he isn't. He somehow or other finds out he's not in various places of the room, and the fellow quiets down about it, and then the next thing you know, there's somebody with a ray gun standing in front of him. Well, this character has never heard about ray guns to amount to anything in this life, but here's ray guns. All kinds of amusing adventures can occur if an auditor doesn't know some of these things.

And you'll also, because we not looking — we're not looking at the higher end of the band, it's equally amusing that if anybody gives away too much things into his own control, he also becomes unhappy. Once in a while, we see this in processing, an immediate line. A fellow — an auditor will knock too much automaticity out of somebody, and make him too self-determined for his environment, and the fellow is miserable — he knows too much.

Well, the psychoanalyst, of course, borrowed and leaned upon hypnotism the like of which I never heard of. And yet never called it hypnotism, and actually didn't practice it as such. Maybe it was unpopular or something. But that phenomenon of transference was something which the individual tried — the analyst tried to bring about. He wanted a transference of the patient to himself. Now, who wants that many psycho patients, huh? Who wants all these people transferred and concentrating on him all the time? Now, that's just gorgeous! What people will do for randomity is inconceivable!

And every once in a while, I've fixed up some preclear with vast enthusiasm, preclear just went on operating, just went on doing what I asked him to do, and after a while — of course, it's for his environment. Actually, you would have to be about one thousand times as self-determined as anybody in this environment to have too little self-determinism in other and faster societies. But in this one, he gets up to a level of where, gee, he knows what's going to happen and he can predict anything, his speed, his competence comes up. And gosh, he gets real unhappy. Because he's just stepped out of pace with what he's considering, at the moment, livingness. So it goes either way.

But here we have this problem. An auditor occasionally will find that a preclear won't be processed by anybody else but himself, or picks up a preclear who is still being processed by some other auditor. This would only occur on a patient who wasn't very aware. Well, one of the easiest ways to get this preclear into awareness would be to wipe out all of his past auditing, wouldn't it? How would you go about wiping out all of his past auditing? This would kill off any of this scrambled transference that might have taken place anyplace in the past. You're not doing psychotherapy, as such, but that doesn't rule out the fact that psychotherapy phenomena doesn't occur. It does occur. Once in a while you see something like that.

And there is a balance, a neat balance between self-determinism and other-determinism, which balance itself is determined by the cultural level in which the individual is trying to live. You get very self-determined, you get so competent, for instance, that your accuracy with a sword or your accuracy with a lightning bolt or your accuracy with something else would be sufficiently great to wipe out all opponents — you immediately come up against "why wipe out any opponents?" Becomes silly.

So the next thing I would do if this case didn't exteriorize very easily — even if it killed him, which it darn near would — I would do some sort of Change of Space on all the places he's been audited, by having him drag the places under him and then push them away. A V, by the way — even a V can do that — he can move rooms under him, or move rooms around him and move them away. But he's so fixed — he's prime post unposted — that he doesn't feel he can move to places. He can't go to places, places have to come to him and so on. And then, I would try and free him up on the track, probably, with this fashion. It would probably practically kill him. But it would be very effective, believe me. Very effective. Long perhaps, but you'd really have him up in present time.

So you wipe out all the opponents. They don't happen to be any enemy of yours; they can't be. Your competence has come up to a point where you can no longer play with them. You've just left all the kids in your neighborhood, in other words. You've gone up and sit on top of a hill. And you'll notice that kids don't like to leave all the kids in their neighborhood and go and sit on top of a hill, even though they're mad at all the kids in the neighborhood!

I'll tell you, by the way, how I straighten out somebody who gets loused up (to be technical) in a session here. I chase him around all the auditing rooms and his hotel room, and the coffee shop. I just chase him around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around, and all of a sudden, ping-pang, they're in room one or something, looking at the far wall. And there they just seem to be. The person doesn't have to be exteriorized to chase him around. He doesn't have to be. You just have him drag the places around him, and then throw them away again — don't let them stack.

They only go sit up on top of the hill just long enough, you see, to get their temper back and figure something mean to do within the realm of agreement. And if they figured out something really mean, like the — supposing they rolled back into the childhood play with a French 75 loaded with shrapnel and chain shot, you know? It just — there wouldn't be any game.

You're liable to find somebody who up to that moment has been a Case V, all of a sudden turn into a Case I, by just doing this operation. You find out where he got stuck in the blackness. This is curious.

Well, these are the various problems, the problems of creation. One can go in for unlimited creation, one can go in for unlimited persistence, one can go in for unlimited destruction, but when he goes in for any one of these things, he unbalances everything he's trying to do.

But there is a specialized problem that comes up — somebody who's been to psychotherapists and that sort of thing. Of course, it gets dangerous when you start playing with anybody who's been to psychiatrists, because God knows what you'd run into! But if it was just Dianetics, Scientology involved and so on, I'd just chase them around all the auditing rooms. But not the psychiatric rooms. You could do that, but that's real dangerous. You're liable to run them into electric shocks and narcosynthesis and rape and — you think I'm kidding!

You'll find people who have dropped away from an ability to create become very miserable. And there is nothing more sour than somebody who can only destroy; he's a real sour apple. And God help the fellow who can only endure or persist — he can't create, he can't destroy, he can only endure or persist. Ooh, what a dogged fate to hand anybody! You could give him mobs of people agreeing with mobs of people that it will never end, you practically knock him flat — because that's what "persist" is.

It's not for nothing that Frieda Fromm-Reichmann in her handbook for the conduct of psychotherapists in their offices, spends almost the entire book telling them that they shouldn't do it with the patients; try and do it outside at least some of the time. Oh, this is a grim situation where standard advice — those guys are so bogged down on the second dynamic it's a wonder they can get to the office. They — it's just gorgeous!

So we were operating all this time, really — the "what life is doing" — you see, in Dianetics, what life was doing was surviving. That's right, it's enduring, that is the explanation of life. That's the only thing wrong with it: My God, does it endure. Its forms endure.

It's no wonder that society has kind of turned against them. Oh, it's fascinating! You get into — some of the poor patients that you get hold of — what's happened to these patients.

You set up a group or something in this society and it'll endure. Everything combines to make it endure. You can get so confoundedly sick of your own constructions standing up, that you wish to Pete there was a French 75 that would knock down some of the ideas you've set up for yourself — they're all enduring. You wonder what's wrong with your postulates, why they don't wipe out easily, why your locks don't release, why you can't run an engram and get an erasure on the thing. Well, you're enduring — boy, you sure are. You're out there for a goal which is without end.

This girl, for instance — you're busy processing this girl and you find out she's been under treatment by a psychiatrist for a number of years and she's all set, and about the only trouble is, she last year had an illegitimate baby and conceived it and had to have an abortion — why did this come about? Because the psychiatrist insisted that she go out and have a love affair in order to straighten out her psyche. Well, it didn't do much for her psyche, but it sure raised hell in other departments.

Now, this is a very tricky goal indeed, as soon as we recognize this, because it doesn't run on an end of cycle. You see that? You've seen the efficacy of end of cycle — "Well, I finally finished that," you say. That's the efficiency of it, the beauty of it, and it produces a considerable relief. But what about these things — how do you run an end of cycle of something which starts out on the postulate it will endure forever? You see? It makes a very amusing thing. Well, the thing for it — because, you see, if it is destroyed then, why, it's a losing cycle.

And so we have a problem on our hands when we deal with that. I'm not telling you this just to be libelous or slanderous. I don't think you could be either one in dealing with that field. I'm telling you this just as a word of caution.

Well, there is a way to lick it. You just bust it down by creating the thing — just endlessly create it. Let it go on and endure, do anything it pleases, but just go on and create it and create it and create it and create it and create it and create it and you've — all of a sudden, it breaks down on the sheer weight of "too much." You see that?

People who use CO2, by the way — you know, they — that's a case of "it has to be done for them by something else," by mest. You know, they can't — it's got to be done for them, so they use a drug or they use a gas or something like that. It tells you immediately where these people are.

So that something which is set up with a basic postulate it must endure is in essence running backwards. It's running until creation. If it's set up to endure and you let it — you try to run end of cycle on destruction, of course you — you've failed. So that brings in the failure cycle. So you let it run until creation. Just run it backwards, that's all. See that?

Well, not to get off rambling about this, we're being darn specific. And what you're going up against every time you go up against anything in a preclear is a barrier of some sort. It's a barrier of distance or it's a barrier which is an anchor point set or it's a barrier — when he can't get out of the body he's just up against disarranged anchor points, that's all. Or it's a barrier that has to do with walls.

Now, back of that lies another mechanism, is that which is not admired persists. So if you just keep on creating — let's take real life, this is humorously referred to — let's take your endurance of things that aren't admired. And you'll find that people are actually trying, here and there, to end that cycle just naturally. You know, they kind of know this — it's one of the working operations of life, and so they try to create this thing which isn't admired.

Now, when you get down to mental barriers, they unfortunately are shadows of physical barriers — they're just shadows of physical barriers. You see that? Up to a certain point. It's very humorous that some of these — some preclears — what they think they can think into being with their minds. This is real cute. You every once in a while will get somebody around who has a guilty conscience because they thought their father ought to be dead, you know, and the old man kicked the bucket.

So they go on creating things that they know won't be admired, and they feel if they create enough of them often enough in real life, why, they will eventually be able to whip this thing which is enduring. It's like the fox without his tail — he goes around and tries to sell all the foxes on the idea that no fox should have a tail. If he can just create the condition widely enough and often enough, he feels it will cease, you see. Well, that's not good processing, not good at all. Because he runs into the other complexities — overt — motivator mechanisms and so on.

Well, I hate to have to tell them this, so I never do, but I'll tell you what I always feel like saying to them: "Sonny, you ain't got enough horsepower to do that. Why don't you stop bragging?" (audience laughter) And it gets into that sort of a thing.

He's setting up new solutions — I mean, new problems to be solved, which is to say the unhappiness about him of all other foxes and so on. Well, why he just doesn't go back of a tree someplace and sit down quietly, and create mock-ups of foxes without tails until he either grows one or he's no longer worried about them, one doesn't quite recognize.

But it's true that when a fellow can inhabit a lot of space or no space at will, and be wherever he wants to be, he starts packing a lot of wallop. But the things which go along with that are so obvious and evident as to make it no doubt about what he's doing. You get somebody who's never been exteriorized who is now going to cause Niagara Falls to run backwards or something like that, this is not going to take place, I guarantee you. The reason why — he can't even make his eyeballs run backwards, much less Niagara Falls.

Well, a thing endures until it's created, if it's a bad thing. And it endures until it's destroyed, if it's a good thing. Now, you can run end of cycle on an awful lot of people simply by running Assumptions. Do you get that? I mean, you run this undesirable thing of having to pick up somebody else's baby, and you run this for a while, and you keep running Assumptions as end of cycle. Or you just create the Assumption over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and create it here and there, and ye god, you fill the Atlantic and the Pacific and all the distance between here and the moon with them, and you just keep on, and eventually it becomes funny, even to the preclear. He finally lets one go.

Now, you get a fellow up to a high state of knowingness, too, he gets dis­interested in barriers. And this disinterest in barriers goes over to sometimes a rather puckish sense of humor about barriers. Or it goes directly into neglecting them, utterly and completely. You start to get very neglectful of things which you can perceive but move through with considerable ease. You get to a point finally where you can't quite figure out why other people are worried about these things. It gets puzzling. You go through enough walls and push enough mock-ups through enough walls, and you're not apt to use many doors, in short.

This is the mechanisms of scarcity. People try to create a scarcity so that they can fix some attention. If a person has a billion of something, why, attention sure is scattered amongst them. And in view of the fact that the thetan is not a thing, he is much more likely to dream up something of which there is only one. And he himself gets into the "only one" category.

Now, if you're still dragging around a mock-up when you get up along that level, you're at a level of liability which shouldn't happen to anybody. Because every once in a while you reach over to push the cake nearer the mock-up of the body's hand or something of the sort, and hit a ridge; and your electronic potential is too high and there's a roaring rush and five anchor points go out of place in the body, it caves over frontwise or something, you hastily straighten up, put an idiotic smile on its face, which is very apologetic, and spend the next two or three days getting this ridge back into place because it's a very delicate job, see? It's something like building a Swiss watch and trying to get these anchor points to stay there long enough so that you don't pull them out. It's real interesting, very interesting.

Now, we see this — these mechanisms operating in life. You can go over them and so on, but I want to call your attention to these things as important. And basically there is knowingness. And then, step down from that, you — stepping down from, basically, we have space, which of course immediately is a barrier. It's the barrier called distance, which is a trick barrier. And we have other limiting barriers. People then try to fight, you see, the barrier called distance, and they fight that by putting up walls, limitations and so forth, so there won't be distances, and they run out of space. So they're caught between the Devil and space. And the Devil is no space, and God is all space, if you want the difference between these concepts. All right.

You can reach past your face for something, and explode a face ridge, and so on.

They work with that. And I call your attention to that and tell you very bluntly that any time you exceed that in processing — that is to say, if you don't realize that that is what you're working with to solve the problem of this universe: knowingness, barriers, in which distance itself is a barrier, and the impositions of barriers — and anytime you exceed that, you're going to bog your preclear down because you're going to be validating new barriers. You're just going to give him more barriers than you're going to take away.

But here we're up against just one problem: A fellow is vacillating between just leaving and staying. So he keeps hitting maybes. And he keeps throwing his own gauge out of line. He keeps throwing himself out of gear. He keeps throwing his balance out of line, you might say. He's careless. He doesn't — it doesn't make too much difference to him, you see, and so he doesn't nicely time some of his motions. Or he finds himself getting careless just to produce some randomity. That also happens.

And anytime you start reaching into the significance of things, you put a new strain on his knowingness. Now, you start worrying like psychotherapy has always worried about the "deep significance of," and you're just catering to the fact that his words betray him, and that life is liable to confront him with problems which in solving them he will betray himself, and he'll do something to ridicule himself. In other words, you just sell him complete on the idea that he's some kind of a piece of machinery — you validate this endlessly, you see — you sell him on the idea he's a kind of a piece of machinery that's going to deliver himself into the hands of the Devil, come hell or high water. And you just sell him on this, and you've got him really sold, and he really gets squirrelly.

He goes out and he looks at the car and he knows very well the car has no gasoline in the tank. Well, he just knows it. He doesn't bother to know it, because he can selectively know. By not bothering to know it, he can then manage to run out of gas. So he has some randomity. He gets himself a five- or ten-minute walk out of it. He even knows what he will do. He knows he's going to walk to a gas station and back. But it just isn't as — important enough to prevent; which is quite different, let me assure you, than working all the time to prevent something and then going into apathy on the basis of "Well I can't prevent anything anyhow, let it go to hell." Because one is done in a perfectly cheerful frame of mind and the other one in an apathetic frame of mind.

What is the deep significance of the fact that he uses 2.1 pieces of sugar? What is the significance of the fact that atoms when they rah-rah go rah-rah and rah-rah, and formulas when poured into formulas make formulas, and test tubes when not washed, as they rarely are, often stink. And you get these terrific technical significances.

These things are quite interesting, and you'll see all of them with a pc. But as his awareness comes up, his ability to handle space conies up. That's the most marked thing you notice about him. But you can't notice that directly, so the next thing you notice in — is his perception. But that again is not directly perceivable to you, so you take his communication as the index.

You could set it up on a little higher basis where it's rather out in the clear and it becomes very silly. You get the professor walking around in the laboratory wondering why it is, and plotting and giving and devoting his whole life to the fact that when test tubes aren't washed, when they've had odoriferous chemicals in them, they have odor. And he could devote his whole life to this problem with great ease, and usually does.

That's a good, high-echelon, good reliable communication. Did you get a communication change because you processed him? If you didn't, you must have been sitting there twiddling your thumbs. It's almost impossible to process somebody without getting a communication change. "Oh, that's flat." I mean it's almost impossible to do it — you have to work real hard to keep from doing something. You'll get a communication change. Which immediately means, of course, a perception change; which, of course, is a slight change of knowingness. But you can change an awful lot of perception in the process of changing a very little bit of knowingness. Not because knowingness changes slowly — it's the fastest changing of all — but because there's so much of it. Here you're shooting the moon, here's infinity.

Then we get some fellow who is — we get some fellow who is looking on the other side and . . . You could — by the way, you could probably prove mathematically that nobody has ever seen the other side of an electron, and give somebody this terrible problem of what is the deep significance of the fact that all electrons are apparently cup-shaped like those little wind cones on anemometers, and that they actually don't have any backside or middle, you know, that they're a little shell. And just set this up and say, "Why is this?" You'd undoubtedly have an awful lot of people start working on it.

Where are we going then with a preclear? We're going up to better inhabitability of space, better perception and wider selective knowingness and feelingness and lookingness in his environment. So he's getting bigger, selectively. Now, when he gets bigger unselectively, he's actually being driven out to a point where he's buttered all over the environment. And you see this at the bottom of the scale. This person is unselectively being hit by everything. This person is not selecting anything, you see — everything is selecting this person.

All you've got to do is take any unreasonable assumption and then look for some deep significance and you have science. Take an unreasonable assumption and look for a deep significance.

Here is the condition a faith healer often gets into. They choose pain as their randomity and at last they get buttered all over the universe. You say, "Do you — where are you not thinking at the moment?" and they can't find anyplace where they're not thinking. Well, they're thinking on a circuit basis, they're not thinking on a knowingness basis.

The unreasonable assumption in this universe is that there is one. You have to go immediately to that assumption any time you try to solve any problems in this universe. Everybody is driven there sooner or later. The greatest physicists of all time have spent their lives sorting out endless bric-a-brac and lying in apathy at last upon their deathbed. They have dictated to their amanuensis the fact that as near as they can figure out, God made it; or as near as they can figure out, it was all caused by the explosion of an atom; or as near as they can figure out, it's an entire illusion; or as near as they can figure out, it will never be solved — anything like this.

When a person has to think, that's different than a person having to know. Now, you'd sit down and you say, "Now, I want to know about this" — that would be the upper way to handle it. The lower way to handle it would be, "Let's see, I'll think about this, and if these other things are true, then something else will be true and that comes back so that something else is true, and that immediately rationalizes into the extreme trueness of the trueness" — and they're all based on data, and the guy's always wrong.

That's because they've gone on to this, and they've picked up immediately and they've entered the problem, always at a more complicated level than it deserved. They assumed there was a universe and then started to solve it. This is as — about as backwards as you could get. You see, you can't assume there is something that you're trying to solve.

How wrong can you get? A mest answer that contains data.

Be self — it should be very evident to you why atomic physics, all it can do right now is go boom! They have to assume the solution in order to solve the problem. Pardon me — they have to assume the solution in order to pose the problem. Do you see that? And as soon as you say, "All right, now here's this universe. Here is this universe . . ."

Now, where are we going on just knowingness? Well, knowingness has to come down through perception and communication in order to translate itself on up through again.

It's like geometry. Somebody comes along every once in a while and shoves geometry under some kid's nose, and the kid doesn't have enough sense to run. And they — says all this stuff like "side angle side" and "angle side angle" and "triangles are triangles is a rose is a rose is a rose, when I was a little girl," as Gertrude Stein would have said.

In processing an individual, if you're not quite aware of what you're doing, and if you're not doing it by a rote process or something of the sort, you should be able to think your way through what you're doing by this. You can say this of any preclear. Here sits this character confronted by innumerable barriers. He's sure they exist. He's also confronted by an awful lot of space that belongs to somebody else. He knows it does. He's sure he's a body. And none of these things are true.

But the point is, of course, side angle side equals side angle side because you've already assumed that side angle side equals side angle side. If you've already assumed something, there's no trick at all to proving it. No trick.

If you just look at a preclear and say that, then you've got him estimated. I don't care whether he's foaming at the mouth or sitting there like a little gentleman — it doesn't matter what he's doing, those three things are always true. He's up against an awful lot of barriers he conceives to exist, that's — and there's no such thing as a mental barrier. You understand that — there's no such thing as a mental barrier. Let's just throw that out when we threw out psychology. Let's just throw it out. Because "it's a mental barrier" — no dice.

And yet, you can sure be mysterious about it, as any geometry professor has long since demonstrated. So we have the problem of the universe. And they say, "Now we're going to solve this universe. Now, let's see, here is the universe. Ha-ha! And here we go, and now we're going to solve this universe." Well, you've just assumed the solution so that you could pose a problem to come up with a solution.

A mental barrier is an energy ridge which has the same validity, when it exists, as a brick wall. I don't know where we got anything mental about this barrier. And these ridges act like rat mazes for thought energy. And the thought energy, which is just impulse energy, goes around and kicks them to pieces, which sets other barriers in motion and makes a very fascinating picture.

Aristotle was a singularly gifted man. I can't bring myself to believe that anybody who was smart enough to keep Alexander from slitting his throat — because Alexander had a specialty on this — if he was smart enough to keep Alexander in line, he sure was too smart to believe his own syllogism. And the fact that he put it forth merely bespeaks a rather diabolical nature. Probably he was poorly — as Freud would have said — "poorly toilet trained" or something. This probably would have been the vast significance Freud would have assigned to it. Anyway . . . (audience laughter)

Now, you understand that? When we talk about a mental barrier we're not talking about "that kind of a fence which a guy conceives."

Anyway, you as auditors have to understand some of this basic of: "Here is the universe. Now we pose a problem and now we've got to solve the universe."

Now, what you can talk about is a reduced knowingness. Make sure you're talking in the right category. This person is always in a state of reduced knowingness, or he's everywhere at once, or he's nowhere — at his selection. If he's completely knowing, he's uncomfortable. So there's such a thing as reduced knowingness which would mean channeled knowingness or attention. See, you could get reduced knowingness.

Now let's take it in terms of auditing: We have — here is a preclear — here's this preclear, he's thinking, he's moving, he's acting, he sees things and does things. And now we have him, you see. Now we've got to pose him as a problem in order to solve him. That won't work. You've got him, you see. That means you've got to look for hidden significance in the preclear.

But now if we start to talk about mental barriers — there aren't barriers to this fellow's knowingness, there's barriers to his space. Don't get sloppy, in other words. Knowingness is without location. A barrier has location. So let's get ourselves semantically oriented. We're talking about mental barriers, we're talking about the guy's own universe and space. See that?

That means in terms of physicists, they've got to look for a hidden significance in the atom. There isn't any hidden significance in an atom. They would have made them explode a long time ago if they hadn't assumed they couldn't. It wasn't a matter of make — their making postulates about it, it was just a matter of them putting a complete barricade, a barrier, across their own knowingness. They took the railroad track, or whatever they were traveling on, or the oxcart trail or the mountain ledge or the clear blue nothingness that they were traveling on, and they just lowered this enormous gate right straight across where they were going. And they said, "All right, now, here is the universe. Now let's have a problem. Now, let's see, what is it composed of?" Well, they've already said, "Here it is." Now, all you had to do from there on was simply look at it.

We're talking about his own space and his own universe, and we're talking about actual energy ridges which are suspended in present time and which he's bringing along with him and all kinds of bric-a-brac of that character. It's made out of energy and it exists in space. And those are barriers, they're real hurdles. He goes along and he hits them, he — if he's at that wavelength at the moment, he'll hit them. See, it's as simple as that. That's a barrier.

If you've said, "Here it is, and this is the way it is; here it is" — you've said, "Here it is" — then the only remaining thing there is to do is to look at it. You can't possibly go backwards on this problem all the time and say, "Now here is something; now it has a hidden significance." This is weird beyond weird. "The hidden significance of" could be put on every tombstone in any part of the universe that was ever erected. "What is the significance of?" That's the game. That's automaticity, that's the game.

A preclear — a map of a preclear would look like a small galaxy. And these are energy deposits which he's lugging along with him. He's like some old prankish, mischievous ghost, dragging around innumerable clanking ridges.

Only reason you have to know about automaticity is a very simple reason: You have to know it so that you can solve remarkable and strange things which the preclear has accidentally started to duplicate and hasn't completed. Not to validate the barrier of the automaticity or randomity. Because a preclear every once in a while will be so confoundedly fixated on something like a twitching right ear, upon the fact that you have — that he has nothing but a pinwheel which goes on and on and on before his gaze, in order to get an entrance to the case, you have to know how to handle an automaticity. And you really have to know this.

But now when we say barriers to his knowingness, the truth of the matter is he knows how to get rid of all of these, but he's afraid of stepping off one button first, and he gets to holding everything down, then he loses track. And he does this kind of on purpose. So now, reduced knowingness.

That's the other — next thing you have to know, see. Is although here's the preclear — yes, here is the preclear — this preclear is a body, a thetan, and a twitching right ear. This is what is presented right there at the moment. And the only thing he's interested in is his twitching right ear. It's an automaticity which he can't control. And that's all he's interested in, are these automaticities that he cannot control. He's not otherwise interested. He is interested in what's going to slug him so suddenly and so swiftly that nothing is going to be able to stand him up to it. This is upsetting to him.

Now, there really isn't any reason why his knowingness can't do a resurgence, except that his knowingness comes up at the same time awareness comes up, and awareness and unconsciousness are the two key buttons which go all the way through every somatic he's got and everything he's inhabiting. And you increase his awareness or decrease his awareness, you'll get something hitting a harmonic somewhere in terms of a barrier. Because he conceives himself existing in space.

So you have to know how to solve this because you've got to be able to get his attention up to a point of where you can break him into his component parts. So he again will say, "Gee! Here I am." You've boosted him up suddenly into a big piece of knowingness, and with drills and so forth, why, he is hitting another plane entirely. You're just making more preclear; you're not saying, "What is the significance of this preclear so we can make less of him."

Now, you could say that, well, all he'd have to do, you know, is just sit down and know about it, and he'd know. And that's all you'd have to do. Nothing to it. The only trouble is, he can't.

And the only reason you handle an automaticity, is just to get his attention off something long enough so that you can break him into his component parts: which is to say a body, an engram bank, a mest universe, and the thetan, and then his own universe and the other fellow's universe; and these are the component parts.

Let's not make the mistake of going around and telling people they have to be self-determined. I just got through telling you, you understand, the fellow just doesn't make up his mind to be self-determined. In the first place his knowingness is invested in knowing what he can't do. And then he makes this come true and convinces himself by setting up actual barriers. So he just booby-trapped himself back to being God, like mad. He's got the whole route booby-trapped; the most intricate booby traps imaginable. It's up to you to trigger them.

But as long as he's jammed up too tight together — he's jammed himself in, and with — had some help doing it, into a situation where he can't any longer solve the problem.

The best way to trigger them is just start invalidating barriers and boy, his knowingness just starts going up like a jet plane. Of course, because he's got it invested in barriers. He knows barriers, see?

Now, the reason why he's — can't solve the problem, is because he's solving problems. I'm — this is horrible to say something like that, because it sounds like I'm making a joke with you or something. But the reason he can't solve the problem is because he can't solve the problem. I just — mest language has a tendency to sort of break down here. I mean, the problem can't be solved, because there isn't any problem.

There's no such thing as a mental barrier, though. Just because there's no such thing as energy is one argument in favor of it, and the other argument in favor of it is, is his investment in space is minimal. But if he's got to have space and then doesn't have any space, now he's got what you might call a backtrack that tells him that in order to get to this point where he doesn't have to have space, he's got to be able to inhabit space. You have to go through every one of those dynamics one after the other. Curious, isn't it?

The big joke of this universe is that there's no secret.

Now, here's one of the funny things — I'll just give you this real fast, one of the funny things — I've probably made everything unclear that I made clear in that little after speech there this morning. But — good, I'm glad it did. Because of — you've got to do some looking.

Now, let me give you the first unsolved problem that the preclear has. It has to do with the eighth dynamic. The biggest chunk of other-determinism which he's ever handed out was to a fellow named God. Shouldn't strike you at all peculiar that the word God, Gott and so forth, in all these languages, runs a very few — that it's almost the same word. It's dios, in the Latin tongues, and in the Germanic, it's Gott or God and so on. This is not really peculiar. Because it's simply a key-in — it's a key-in phrase, it's a restimulator phrase. And you, right away, probably shudder a little bit at my suddenly saying that the name of this august and great being is simply the key phrase on an engram, but it happens to be more or less true. And this is not sacrilegious on my part, I'm just telling you that God — the word God gets into engrams. And it gets in there so much that a person's other-determinism says that "all the space there is, was God's."

One of the very amusing parts of all of this has to do with the preclear's certainty of his own certainty. He begins to pile this up, one way and the other — interlock it in some kind of a fashion — so that he will become certain of consequences, if he undoes consequences. And that's the way he booby-traps his knowingness. See how he does that? He becomes certain of consequences, so that, other words, his certainties become barriers. Certain of consequences. Now, he explains this to himself by running into things. And this is very convincing.

Now, what's the first problem he was ever posed by this subject? What's the first one? He made a mock-up and it disappeared. And then there was somebody there in the flesh to say, "You poor fellow, God has smitten you." And he made another mock-up, and it disappeared. And this fellow came back and he said, "You poor guy, what's happening to you?"

But you can be absolutely certain when you're processing somebody that just the straight course of invalidating barriers unbooby-traps the works.

Well, you see what happened there: Two thetans got together and one of them was kind of a little more innocent than the other one, or less so, and the first big gag was, you made somebody's mock-up disappear and then you said somebody else did it. See? And in view of the fact that — that's why you want identity so badly, is identity relieves you of this game called "God did it."

Now, you invalidate the great barriers of nothingness by at least cursorily addressing this one: This character has deposits of nothing all around and through his own universe. They're triumphs. He's made nothing of things. You see? And he keeps that pocket of nothing, he keeps it as — the way somebody would keep a reindeer's horns or something that he shot. And you start looking around a pc and boy, he's got all these nothingnesses. Well, they have to be bounded by somethingnesses in order to be nothingnesses. And so you get these deposits and vacuums which produce these strange "hungers" which you find in Acceptance Level Processing. He's a honeycomb. His whole bank is honeycombed with these victorious nothingnesses. He made nothing out of that, by golly!

And he came around, and everybody was using this, and it got into an agreement finally that the reason mock-ups disappeared like this — that was God, see. And like the World War — they had "gremlins" that did things to their planes. Gremlins didn't exist.

Now, you can ask somebody, "How long has it been since you made nothing — really, really made nothing out of something?" Oh, he's liable to think that's been a long time. And he'll start shifting off of it, and he'll realize that the reason he moves around so much in this universe is he's really — he's really not making nothing out of anything, you see? He's just converting, converting, converting, converting, converting. That's because this is an enduring universe.

These thetans — if you took the composite of all thetans, you would have what man has attempted to describe in the word God. See, you just took a composite of all life impulse — now, this you would say would be the prime mover unmoved. Well, that composite, everybody wants to solve that now in terms of "What is the terrific significance of this?" Well, it is. That's — you can't — you have to really just start beating this out. It is. It observably is. It isn't observably from eight other angles or something of the sort, and you don't have to get down on your knees and look through a hole in the fence to observe it, it hits you in the face every time you turn around.

Well, I'm glad you're all unclear again! It tells you that these processes of six ways to nothing are just about the best you've got. And locational processes and processes which put emotion and obedience and disobedience into barriers and mock-ups.

Life is quite different from mest because it gets ideas; it has imagination and ideas. And this stuff mest, whether built into machines or put on motion-picture screens or anything else, does not have ideas or imagination. It will, in a UNIVAC or ENIAC or a music-making machine, turn out quite faithfully various patterns of knowingness, providing it is monitored by a machine set up by life.

Now, you see, you'd play those three things together. You'd locate the guy — you locate him, you see. Now, you give him no barriers. Then you put emotion in barriers and in space — emotion of course, including several varieties. And then you go into undoing his unconsciousness, directly, by putting unconsciousness and obedience and disobedience — you know, compliance. And then you'd go back, right away, around again, to get six ways to nothingness. Pardon me, you get him located again, and then go to six ways to nothingness. It doesn't matter which way you do it. So that we could call this — we can call this another little process and just put it together that way, and it'd bring you out of the dark and out of any argument you're in. And the way it'd go, is you just throw the — you get him located — you know, by "Where isn't he?" past, present and future. And then you'd get him — then he's there, well, you give him "six ways to nothingness." And then you would give him putting emotion in things.

In other words — in other words, you have always — ahead of everything you have this causative thing, and this causative thing most causes ideas. And that's the single real, observable, big difference between a solid object and a living thing.

And after you've given him a lot of this, see — given him a lot of this — then start putting unconsciousness in things, and obedience and disobedience into things, because that's the condition of hypnotism.

So we have this tremendous difference, and we look down the line at the activities of life, and we can conclude it is. And we can also conclude that it sure is fooling itself one way or the other, and it sure is hiding its left hand from its right hand, and it certainly is trying to play several games of chess as several different players, in any unit you discover.

And then you'd come back again, and start out once more by locating him, then giving him six ways to nothing, and then giving him emotions which would include thought and effort, and then come around and give him unconsciousness and obedience and disobedience in mest objects — six ways to these things.

I think even a butterfly goes around trying to play chess with himself, as low a monitored unit — and a butterfly is a monitored unit, he's not a life unit. All right.

And then you'd come around again, and you'd locate him. And you give him six ways to nothing. He, theoretically, in this fashion, would simply — in spite of anything else you did, and in favor of just clarity — he would get Clear and get exteriorized eventually, he just wouldn't be able to help himself. So again, all this makes sense once more, doesn't it?

What's the point here? In trying to solve this preclear, in trying to solve his problems and his troubles and so forth, you want to get him out of significances. Please, get him out of significances. Because life, in trying to fool itself, played this first trick consistently, and said, "Only God can make nothing." After a while, the fellow had assigned — after this trick had been played on him enough, he said, "Only God could make nothing, therefore God is all space."

Sure had you lost there for a minute, though. Gee, you sure get lost easy!

And to this moment, you take any preclear and you have him put up a mock-up — this preclear has been having the most dreadful time trying to get something to disappear — and you have him put up this mock-up, you say, "Time, disappear." Well, it will, but the great reliability that you will have is when he puts up a mock-up, tell him to have God make it disappear — and boy, it will, right now.

Okay.

Now, there's a process that goes along with nothingness which demonstrates to you quite easily that people are afraid of nothingness, which makes them afraid of space, which makes them pull in toward a somethingness. And the nothingness has been made so mysterious — just because of the ideas which float around about these nothingnesses — that hardly anyone is able to expand very far without running into it.

One of the exercises which can best be utilized in this, is to have the preclear put out, at various angles and directions from him — put out, you understand, or just find there and say he put it out and created it — a nothingness.

One would do that in this fashion, in the latter — give you an example of the latter phase of that first. One would say, "Now, let's find an empty spot somewhere around you."

The fellow says, "All right."

And the auditor then says, "All right. Now say that you put it there."

"Well, I don't know . . . Okay."

And we start round and round on this technique, putting these in various directions, the six directions from the individual, and he gets quite triumphant, he gets quite excited about this in a very short space of time.

And then we can quickly get too much significance into this technique by saying that — have these nothingnesses and say, "God put them there." And start to work them in terms of brackets and so forth.

And the latter part of the technique — this is such a high, high level of process, it'll make the preclear sick — he'll get sick; that's a certainty. But also, who knows, in getting sick, if he's processed ably, you might process him right straight through and right on up the line at a heck of a rate.

That's sort of — this technique is a sort of a process by which you would go for broke in somebody who's pretty good shape. You'd have God put these nothingnesses there, and then you'd have him make nothing of God, and have him demolish churches, and have churches and God demolish him, and spirits demolish him, and him demolish others. And we find out that the thetans have gotten into a monomanic contest of make nothing while they themselves try to be something, and thus they go on a dwindling spiral.

The most mysterious thing you could have would be a nothing that people say something is in. And that of course is the deepest significance of all, and is the answer to all: a nothingness in which there is something. And they believe implicitly and utterly that there are somethings, because they can believe that there is a nothing in which something exists.

That's all.