Русская версия

Search document title:
Content search 1 (fast):
Content search 2:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Black Mock-ups, Persistence, MEST (2ACC-6) - L531118B | Сравнить
- Step I of 8-C - Orientation (2ACC-5) - L531118A | Сравнить
- Step II - Automaticities (2ACC-7) - L531118C | Сравнить
- Waste a Machine (2ACC-8) - L531118D | Сравнить

CONTENTS Step I of 8-C: Orientation Cохранить документ себе Скачать

Step I of 8-C: Orientation

Waste a Machine

A lecture given on 18 November 1953A lecture given on 18 November 1953

This is November the 18, first morning lecture.

This is the second period this afternoon. This afternoon, I'm going to give you the integration of these two things: geographical location and positioning — positive and negative positioning — in auditing terms.

We're going to have, this morning, a very fast rundown on Steps I and II, Clinical Procedure. We'll find as we develop this material that it falls more and more into a highly formalized shape now.

Now, every time you try to position somebody, you run into the fact they may start thinking or start being where they are — they might start being where they think they are. You get that?

There isn't a technique which we have here, which I haven't had in operation for over eight months. Not one of these. But these techniques fitted into the proper frames of reference for communication and delivery to the understanding of an auditor who's expected to use them, and an application upon an individual's case and so on, is still in the process of development and will continue so. These are — processes are old, but they are not old in terms of their arrangement.

You ask somebody, "Now, are you in Paris?"

Let's take now, very rapidly, a rundown on Step I. A Step I is somebody, of course, who can step immediately back of his head. This shouldn't confuse you for a moment on this subject. After somebody's stepped in back of his head, you run Step I. And then you run II and III and IV and V and VI and VII. Now that's actually what they're designed to do. It happens, with their arrangement that if he doesn't do Step I, you go to Step II, Step III, Step IV, Step V, until you spring him. And then you go to what he can do exteriorly. And the safest thing to do is simply run I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII exteriorized. Because the technique is designed for, now, exteriorized processing — the processing of an exteriorized person — not with its emphasis on exteriorizing somebody. Do you understand that?

And he says, "Yup."

Now, Clinical Procedure is simply this development: that you could just start processing somebody and actually to some degree omit the step, as such, of exteriorization — because he'll exteriorize. Well then, he's being exteriorized without being forced into exteriorization.

You say, "Hm. Are you in South America?"

Well, Step I is orientation. It depends upon this Prelogic: that theta creates space, time, energy, and locates it in the space. And its second operation, of course — a secondary operation — is to locate things in space and time. First couple of Prelogics.

And he'll say, "Yup."

Now, that's "pre-Logic," by the way. Those aren't just something we thought of, you see, after we thought of the Logics. Because the Logics are Logics. And if you want to make somebody who is having a good time think-think-think-think-think practically spin, just have him double-terminal logic. Just have him put logic out there in front of him four times, and you'll see more action than you've ever seen before, because there is the bottom rung of automaticity. Really gorgeous what happens on logic! That's not a recommended procedure, that's just a demonstration procedure.

"Hm. Are you at the North Pole?"

Two kinds of procedure — there's three kinds. There's investigatory, demonstration that phenomena is there, and then practical processing procedures. And many that would belong — were in practical and — practical processing procedures have moved into the other procedures. All right.

"Well, yup."

Now let's take this Prelogic — that's before Logic. That's exactly what it says. It isn't an Axiom; it isn't a self-evident truth; it isn't a basis on which you can evolve something, as you can in the Logics. It just happens to be phenomena which precedes logic.

Now, right there, without going into the impossible and the incredible and the dangerous methods of relocating him, unless the case is very far down . . .

And then we get logic proceeding dually: one, simply from knowingness; and two, simply from these Prelogics of locating things in time and space.

When a case is real far down you've got to go much further than this. I mean, you've got to go into the impossible and the incredible and the dangerous — just shake them loose. Because they're not in shape where they can run anything like, or understand what you're talking about.

You can reduce practically the whole language, if not the entire language, simply to action in space. Action or lack of action in space. For instance, the language is very limited because its use is communication of space — is what can we mutually observe? Those things which we have observed are in space and are objects in space and are motion in space, and as a result we get a communication. That is the basic communication, is motion in space, and different kinds of spaces. So that is, essentially, communication. So the mest language has a tendency to relegate itself entirely to this. But we can take this language — fantastic thing — we can take this language and talk about something that is completely out of its definition.

But this is merely the case that doesn't understand what the devil you're talking about, and is pretty foggy and gropes around, and so forth.

Language is something we can mutually observe, which has become symbolized in terms of words. Now, we can take these words, because we've symbolized them, and we can simply move out of it by saying, "Well, we don't mean that symbol. You see, we mean the opposite of that symbol." And there must have been an opposite to the symbol or otherwise there wouldn't have been a symbol, and people understand what you mean.

Any case present here, you would follow into this kind of a position: You would say, "Now, let's waste a machine that sends you someplace." That's actually, you think, maybe Step IV. No, it's not. That's Step II. This guy is not going to exteriorize well until he can be located well.

But the communication of this material has been the problem to be resolved, more than anything else. All right.

Exteriorization, inability to, has immediately under it this heading: "Not located." That's all the reason there is to why a person can't exteriorize, actually — they're not located. Their abilities are somewhere else, see? Simple. Everything they know or can do or can feel — all these things are elsewhere. And every time you ask these people to get into locations of this or that or "where are they not," they either get occluded or the mock-up disappears or they disappear or the body unmocks or everything gets very solid or they suddenly fix.

Now, in Step I, we are attacking not just somebody who exteriorizes and is three feet back of his head and knows it and is very certain and so on. Don't classify that step as an operation or action step. Let's classify it on more of what it is: that is the step of Location. And anything and everything that has to do with location past, present and future, belongs in Step I. Specifically location — not change of location, that belongs in Step V; but just plain, ordinary, routine, run-of-the-mill location.

I had one case here, I asked him to disappear and he probably never, at any moment, felt more solid than just at that instant when I asked him to be three feet back of his head. And he all of a sudden fixed.

Where is the microphone? It is so many inches from this corner and so many inches from that corner. And that is the position of the microphone. And this room is such and such a distance from such and such an object, and so on. Because all locations are relative. They are relative to other locations.

All of this comes under the heading of, and we use — just use the word machinery in lieu of postulates and facsimiles, see? We use the word machinery. Because they very happily mock all this up in terms of a machine. But their mothers show up and their fathers show up and so forth, because these are machines, too. They're facsimile machines. They're biological machines. And they're all basically postulate machines. That's the most basic machine there is, you see, is a postulate machine.

And soon as the person realizes there is no hitching post in the MEST universe which is suddenly sitting — to be found by a preclear, suddenly sitting there, which is immovable, irradicable and entirely fixed without relating itself to any other post, that it's the "prime post unposted," you've actually lost your grip on the whole subject of logic. The reason for this is, is every logic is related to some other logic, every datum is related to some other datum. Data can only be evaluated in terms of data of comparable magnitude and so forth. And we go right on off into all of the Logics and Axioms.

But you just don't walk into a case and say, "All right. Clip out all the postulates now which make you forget about all your automatic machinery. Now clip out all the postulates that hide all your automatic machinery. Now clip out all the postulates to protect all your automatic machinery. Now clip out all the postulates that keep your automatic machinery from appearing. Now clip out all the postulates that made your automatic machinery in the first place." And say, "All right, you're Clear. Five dollars. Next case." Don't do that. People like to drag it out longer. (audience laughter)

But there is no "prime post unposted" in the universe to which everything else relates. People have a tendency . . . You know, when I was running, you know, "Touch the statue," on arrival — you know, I would just run this as, "In the future you have touched the statue." Well, naturally people have the idea there ought to be a "prime post unposted" to which everything else is related. That there is a location which is independent of any other location. No such location exists. All locations are there because they are related to other locations which are there, because they are there because they are related to other locations which are there. And around and round we go.

You want to know what this stuff is up here in the wall — this MEST is up here in the wall — it's a postulate. That's no reason it isn't real, though. The realest thing there is, is a postulate.

And people get into these silly things like "It must be a circular time track," and "It must be a circular universe." This is only because if they beat everything to pieces, they would find out it finally related to itself. They would find out that after they've related everything to everything that was related to everything, they would get back to the first thing that they started relating things to.

Don't go into reverse on this and say, "Well, the most unreal thing there is about it — it can't be real because I just thought so," you see? He keeps saying that every once in a while, "Well, I just think so, so therefore it isn't real." Waaa! Boy, that person is an inverted one, see? Because he thinks so, it isn't so. The only reason anything ever got so is because he thought so. See what great simplicity we have here. All right.

I'll give you an example of this. All right. We take the microphone: it's so many inches from that corner, so many inches from that corner. And the room: it's sitting in a room where those corners — those corners in relationship to the courthouse over here — there's so many feet over to the courthouse, and it's so many feet down the line to a certain river dock. Okay, where's the courthouse? The courthouse is related in a certain location to Washington, DC and that is — and the courthouse is also in certain relationship to Los Angeles. All right. Where's Washington, DC, and Los Angeles? They're at the extremities of the United States, which is located between two oceans. Where are these two oceans? They are located on Earth and the Earth is located in relationship to a sun. But this sun is in location to Polaris, Betelgeuse, Arcturus and certain other stars. And where are these located? They are located in their relationship to the positions from the center of this galaxy. Where's the center of this galaxy? The center of this galaxy is the mean location and centering of all lines which would be drawn inward toward it. That's the center of the galaxy. It's very simple. All right.

Let's take this thing very logically — illogical basis — which is, is. It's merely a geographical location. Now, a geographical location depends upon the fact that we have to assume that there are barriers. So any machine that makes barriers is the most senior machine there is. Because that has to precede the machine which unmakes barriers. So you have machines that mock up barriers and machines that unmock barriers as your two fundamental machines.

Now, let's just take the galaxy. We say, "Where is the center of the galaxy?" Well, the center of the galaxy is related at such and such a distance from that microphone. See, people think they know something. Science is always engaged on this. They say, "The railroad track goes from Hoboken to Sloboken. It starts in at Hoboken and arrives at Sloboken." Then they never ask, "Where's Hoboken?" and "Where's Sloboken?" They think they've located a railroad track. Well, actually they have, because that's the — all the location there is.

Now, there are various other machines which stem from these. There are machines that make barriers disappear by covering them with blackness. And there are machines which fight other barriers by covering other barriers with blackness. And that cancel other barriers by — make them intolerably full of effort. Now, these machines are just basically these two machines: one, the machine that makes barriers and the machine that unmakes barriers.

The greatest secret of the mest universe, you see, is there's no secret. It is there. But it's there because you say it's there. And this doesn't mean it isn't there, merely because you say it is there. Because, you see, you happen to be all the authority there is for the location of it.

See, viewpoint of dimension — the second you put out eight anchor points, you put out actually, in essence, eight barriers. And you've got space if you've put out eight barriers. You haven't got any space till you put out eight barriers. Space doesn't exist till you do. No reason to be tangled up about this, it's just — it doesn't exist, that's all.

And people who want to minimize people's authority say, "Well, it's all illusionary because you just think it's — you just imagine it." Oh, boy, what a cancellation. Rrrr! You're nothing because that which you imagine, then, has no validity. And when all the validity there is, is that which you imagine . . . See? In other words, your imagination can make things awful doggone real real. See? Real good.

So don't think that you can go on agreeing with the mest universe forever and have an excellent case. The reason why you can't do this is because the MEST universe is composed entirely of barriers. You've just asked the fellow to go on agreeing with barriers forever. And it's an automatic machine that you're validating.

The way to look at it — it's just a difference of viewpoint — is whether you take the motorcycle down the road or the motorcycle takes you down the road. They say, "It's all illusory because you thought of it." All right, that's the motorcycle taking somebody down the road, see? Everybody knows they're nothing, and so on. So let's turn this around and say that "It's really real because you thought of it." Entirely different angle on the same thing. Well, that belongs, actually, in terms of knowingness.

So you keep punching this machine and punching it and punching it and punching it, and all of a sudden the barriers get thin and they shiver and the rooms start going out of plumb. And the Walt Whitman Hotel (which is one of the favorite things they were using up in 726) — boy, it took a beating during the last six weeks. (audience laughter) It all of a sudden is out of plumb. It grows in height. Well, these things — that isn't — nothing's supposed to happen that way.

So locational activities have to do, of course, with limitations and barriers. And this is the first step out of knowingness. We immediately move out of this certainty which is knowingness. Certainty is not data. It's not data, it's just knowing — knowing one knows. And that is actually a state of beingness.

You ask a guy to hold on to the back corners of the room and not think, that's real good. If you ask him to hold on to the back corners of the room and think, that's real bad.

But the first observable state of beingness has to do with space. And the second we get into space, of course — in order to have space, we have to have a viewpoint of a dimension. Well, how is the dimension achieved? The dimension is very simply achieved by having barriers on the space. But why and how is the space there? The space is there because it has barriers. So we're into an interrelated thing. We're into: Barriers make location possible. Location only becomes confused because of barriers. See? See, it's one of these — it's Q and A. It is what it is; the way to cross the river is to cross the river; the way to eat breakfast is to eat breakfast.

What's the difference between these two? You ask him, 'Well, just hold on to the back corners of the room and just relax." In other words, let the machine called George do it. He's out of contact with that machine anyhow, and if he doesn't think, it's all right.

Now, here we have somebody looking at barriers which he put up. Then looking at barriers which he and somebody else put up. Then looking at barriers which somebody else put up. And you've got about all the kinds of barriers there are. Of course, there's the barriers somebody put up for him, and the barriers they put up for other people. So we have another classification, and we have a bracket of five. Actually, there are six brackets in space. We'll go into that later.

But now if he holds on to the two back corners of the room and thinks, he starts energizing all kinds of machinery. And so this machinery goes into action on the machinery which he's using to mock up the MEST universe.

But when we have location, we have to do with barriers. You understand that the more we validate barriers, the more barrier they become. And the trouble with your pc, he's got too many barriers. Don't, however, miss this fact: unless you backtrack the track of agreements, you're not taking the wheels delicately, and the excess balance wheels and so forth out of the watch, you're just smashing the watch. You can just suddenly say, sneeringly, "Well, there's no barriers and the barriers don't have any validity and so forth, and it's all unreal anyway and we're all set." This is the way it works.

And it's very funny about these machines. One day — one day not too long ago, I ate a smelt that probably did, a little bit, when it came from the butcher. And it made me a little bit sick at my stomach, just for a little while, until I went out walking around — walking around. And I located the machine that makes smelts, very simple, and kicked hell out of it. And the smelt disappeared. It's very simple. Wasn't anything to this.

He's convinced there are barriers and then he's unconvinced, which is an involution, you see? At first he's real convinced there are barriers, and then he gets unconvinced of these barriers of which he's already convinced. See, this is real unreality now. I mean, he was absolutely sure that when he banged his head into the tree, it found an impact between the head and the tree. You see, an impact was there when he banged his head into the tree. When he stamped his foot on the concrete walk, a foot contacted a concrete walk. He's very sure of this. Now, time goes on and he overdoes this and he becomes so sure that he's really sure, and he's sure beyond sure beyond . . . Well, it's — I don't know, you stamp feet into concrete walks, you have to have feet and they're very, very scarce; and maybe we'd better not stamp so many feet into so many concrete walks, and the way to do this is not to have so many feet and not to have so many concrete walks because they're scarce. That's about all there is to logic. But that's direct logic, that it actually assaults one's credulity that it could go this way. But after a while, why, he doesn't have feet to stamp against concrete walks.

But, of course, the most direct thing to do was simply to unmock the smelt. And the next most simple thing to do is, of course, to not eat smelt. And the next most simple thing to do before that, is to not have a stomach or a body which needs anything like energy to motivate it. Simple, isn't it? All right. Now you get no randomity, see? Simple! Okay.

Now, what have you got to do? You've got to give him a concrete walk — not necessarily, but the fast-working technique gives him a foot and a concrete walk, shows him they're real, and then shows him they aren't real again. But that's bringing him up scale, not down scale. It doesn't show him, "Look, here's a foot and a concrete walk. Now, you're sure they're there? Now we're going to show you they're not there at all. Uh-huh! And we're going to show you not only that they're not there, but that you're a very foolish person for believing they ever were there." And we just wheel the guy off in a wheelbarrow to the local spinbin. And that's the way it's done.

So let's look over the problem of automaticity and geographical locale, and we find out there's no geographical locale unless some automaticity's been set up in the first place. As long as a fellow simply knows he is, he also knows where he is. If he just knows he is, then he knows where he is. But boy, a lot of people have come down the line on validation of automaticity to a point where they don't know where they are. See, they don't know where they are. And the reason they don't know is very simple: is because the machinery is superior to them. And the machinery tells them they have to have a location. So if the machinery tells them they have to have a location, then where they are has to be located for them by things which they create. But that's on automatic . . .

That's the big operation in this universe, is you convince somebody something exists, and then you unconvince him by showing him it doesn't exist. And you do this, and if you do this on a line where he is merely being confused by it, and is still carrying his old existences, why, he's in terrible shape. So, again, we have the validation of barrier. The validation of barrier precedes, by impact, the invalidation of barriers.

You know, one of the weird double-terminal buttons that you can run is — the least admired thing I know of in the whole universe is just this one, that's why it's so persistent — is "setting up something so it will continue to run with no attention." And you mock up yourself doing that in four positions and you'll find out it gets mighty hectic and erratic because you've walked into the center of automaticity. Real erratic, such mock-ups get very often. All right.

And people invalidate barriers. This works like this: A fellow is convinced that a blackjack will meet a skull when wielded against a skull. He objects to this and he objects to it and he objects to it and keeps getting slugged with a blackjack. So finally he goes to the point of where he says, "Because of this, there is no blackjack and I have no skull, really." See, that's his defense against this. He says they don't exist. In other words, he tries to scramble backwards — and all the time he is madly holding a skull away from a blackjack, and a blackjack away from a skull. Although he's convinced they don't exist — he says.

What's the process then? Well, you play Step I against Step II. And you could actually just keep doing this Step I against Step II until a person gets cleared. Step I is "Where are you with relationship to the barriers?" And when we get to II, he didn't exteriorize easily and well on I, so when we got to II we merely assume — and we — remember, we'd do all these things with the person exteriorized too; it isn't just to get him out, that isn't our emphasis. When we get to Step II, we find out that we have located him by things which he had a hand in creating. See that?

So your preclear is madly holding the foot above the sidewalk and not letting it meet, the head from smashing the tree, all over the time track — and at the same time saying, "I'm not there. I'm not there. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. No. No, it isn't real."

We locate him, he just feels fine about it, and then we're immediately into the echelon that he has exited and is located in — he's now located in space which he has a hand in creating. The essence of simplicity.

"I can't see well," he says, "you know, I can't see well. I look at the walls and they're kind of thin. Kind of seems to me sometimes the whole universe is liable to disappear." This is real sad. Well, all you do to reverse this is to give him back the barriers which he already had, and then undo those, so he's no longer holding something.

So at Step I we find out that he is not located in the space which he has created. In Step II, why, we start to make it unnecessary to be so dependent upon this space which he himself created and now thinks that somebody else is creating, see? So that's Step I and Step II, the values of.

And how do you go about this? You show him by a process — Step I, actually — that there is no barrier to hold. Now, the way you show him, however, is by showing him there is a barrier to hold, and then showing him there isn't a barrier to hold, on this basis: self-determined.

Actually, II is a much higher echelon step than I. But while a person is still inside, you find you have to go all the way down these steps to find someplace to start unmocking this maze — this mirror maze — which he's got fixed up and which he's lost control of.

See, there are two ways to go about it. The way he goes down scale is it's other-determined assurance, you know? Blackjack against the skull, blackjack against the skull, blackjack wielded by somebody else, skull belongs to something else, and there they're coming together madly and he's trying to say all the time, "They're not there," and something else is saying very authoritatively, "They're not there," and then somebody comes along later and tells him and convinces him utterly that he has no skull. This is other-determinism at work.

Now, lost control would be the one thing that you can say is in general and in common with all automaticity. He hasn't any control. It's where he doesn't have control that something is automatic.

Now, self-determinism at work, you simply show him, "Look, you were making the barriers in the first place," and he realizes this suddenly. But if he doesn't realize this on his own power, you have not unmade it, you have just pushed him down scale. You get the two differences?

And for instance, pc this morning did a couple of shivers, and — threw it a little bit to make her make a machine which would knock her out of control. Well, of course that's fun too. So somewhere back on the track they have a machine that knocks somebody out of control. That's the basic machine. But later on, a pc — earlier lives and that sort of thing — starts getting hit by freight engines and running through The Perils of Pauline in general, and this earlier machinery gets a lot of facsimiles piled up on it. And these are all barriers.

So by locating him in time and space all over the shop, you eventually show him that he has the power to locate himself in time and space. And you take away any of the automaticity which he had and was trusting and had forgotten about. You've taken away the automaticity which is doing all this locating for him. You just locate him, you see. You get him located in three universes: his own, somebody else's and the mest universe. And you get him well-located and well-oriented, and you get him well-oriented in time, you find present time for him and that sort of thing. And then on his own determinism — because he's gotten rid of this automaticity and a few other things (but that all takes place in Step I, just automatically; again, the step itself is somewhat automatic) — he gets up to a point where he can start looking through the barriers; but he can only start really looking through them when he knows he put them there. You get the idea?

Now, you understand that running a facsimile is validation of a barrier. People start validating the barrier called the facsimile to a point where that energy becomes, if anything, more real than mest energy. And that's why after, at the most, a few hundred hours of auditing, Dianetic processing starts to cave in. You see why that is? It's very simple. It's just that you validate the barrier of the engram.

First, he knows they're his, and he knows he at least had a hand in putting them there. And then he can banish them. And then he can put them there at will. And then he relaxes about the whole thing. You see?

If you validate barriers which contain unconsciousness, only — you can only do this for a few hundred hours and then all of a sudden this starts to become a new reality. Because you've set up an auditing machine which is — has as its prime purpose the correction of barriers. And the correction of barriers, of course, can only take place when you say, "I've got barriers." And this can only take place when you say, "I have no responsibility for the barriers," which is to say, "I didn't make them."

If you put it the other way around, whereby you just start hammering and convincing him and then saying, "You see, you know it isn't there," why, you're just being other-determinism. He'll simply go down Tone Scale.

When you take complete full responsibility, it is the willingness to mock or unmock barriers at will. Any barrier, no matter what it is.

People get over arthritis, by the way, by going into apathy. Yeah, you can move somebody from anger down into apathy, he'd probably lose his arthritis. Interesting, isn't it?

Now, people go around all the time with mental blocks. They can't think of this, they can't think of that, they can't remember this and they can't do this. And they wouldn't dare get on a stage and do something because — and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

You can do things to somebody by pushing them down scale as fast as you put them up scale. That's right. Just as fast. Of course they're not much there anymore and so forth, but they're not any trouble to anybody either. Psychiatry works on this basis to some very marked degree. They "treat" patients so that the patient is less trouble to his environment, and that's their goal.

All politeness, manners, social culture, is based upon validating series of invisible blocks. So these invisible barriers — these blocks, barriers, same thing — these invisible barriers themselves becoming validated, get more and more real, more and more real, and start to supplant the reality of the situation.

And our goal neglects the fact that the patient may be more trouble to his environment. Just neglects it utterly. Because, by test, we have discovered that after he's been troublesome to his environment for a while, he gets to a point where he's assisting his environment, and we figure that's better.

You get somebody being very polite while the house is burning down. You see, he's rushed in to pick up the baby, and he brushed by somebody suddenly on the stairs and knocked them a little bit, you see. And he stops to apologize and excuse himself before he goes on and rescues the baby! Oh yes, that's more important than rescuing the baby! And so things go out of balance.

It's all a point of view, whether everybody succumbs or everybody survives. And it's just difference of viewpoint. And probably a lot of argument in favor of everybody succumbing, except the person who wants them all to succumb. And it's just a point of view, you might say. It comes under the heading of the "only one." If a fellow has to play the idea of the "only one," then everybody's got to succumb. See, everybody else must succumb because he's the "only one." It's very simple. All right.

And by the way, as I talk about this sort of thing, I'm kidding it merely because it doesn't deserve anything more than a little smile or a joke or a laugh. But I'm not trying to tell you that all this is real bad. As a matter of fact, it's a wonderful way to get randomity. It's real good. But you carry it too far and then say, "I've forgotten how I'm doing it," and then you've got other people around with whom you're in constant communication who think it's just wonderful that you started doing that out, that way, because he knows the only chains you can put on yourself you put there yourself. All I'm trying to do is tell you: "Now, look, if you throw away a few hundred pounds of these chains, why, you'll be lighter." That's all. It's a supersimplicity.

What precisely does Step I consist of? Consists of direct location.

Now, a failure to exteriorize is a validation of a barrier called a body. You know, you've said, "It's there, it's there, it's there." After a person passes a certain point in this, all of a sudden it's not there anymore, see? The — that's automaticity for you. As soon as you've completely decided, and as soon as you're completely assured that the automaticity which you've set up is itself utterly dependable, from that moment on it deteriorates in dependability. So you set this body up and you get it beautifully trained and it's just like getting all dressed — training is something like getting all dressed for the show, with no show. You get to a point of where it's all automatic, and after that you don't put on a performance. That's quite a button, by the way — quite a button to run.

Now, when you tell somebody, "Be three feet in back of your head," you, of course, are telling him to locate himself. And you've got him out of his own wavelength and bailed him out of energy sufficiently so that he is able to, actually, process things by sort of changing his mind. He can sort of change his mind there, from there out — within the limits imposed, which are resolved by Step II.

As a little kid you were always doing this. You'd say, "Well, gee, I could be Buck Rogers dead easy if I just had a space helmet and a space gun and . . ." You needed the equipment. In other words, "havingness before movingness." That's just reversing it. You've got to have movingness and out of movingness comes havingness. And if you haven't got enough sense . . .

Now, what else is there to this step? Well, you see, that's just one brand of location.

Alexander had enough sense. One part of his campaigns way back there in the fourth century before Christ — he made his troops burn their baggage. And then he didn't have much sense after that, and he forgot to. And he got less and less motion. Believe me, he got less and less motion till they finally all said, "We want to go home." And they went home. And there went the end of the world conquest. Why? Well, when havingness has to come before doingness in each and every case, you get less and less havingness, really. Really. Because what comes before havingness is doingness. The postulate of motion exists before the particle is moving.

Now, because he has been so dependent upon impacts in the past for his conviction, it becomes more important for the auditor to discover where he is not, than where he is. And on this case, you never go in on the basis of, "Now where are you?" If you were really doing a smooth job of auditing, you wouldn't even ask him, "Are you three feet back of your head?" See? Now, you would say, "Are you in your head?" — you say, "Three feet back of your head. Now where are you not in the body?" That would be the next question.

And so, you've gotten all dressed up with a body and you have a recognized identity, and everything is swell, but no play! This is silly, see?

And he'd say, "Well, I'm not in my feet. I'm not in my stomach. I'm not in my shoulders. See, I'm not in my — oh, I'm not in my head! Ha-ha!"

And now if a fellow's buried this fact away from himself, he's saying, "I'm having no fun." Of course he's having no fun, because he forgot what show he was supposed to be in! Very simple. He finds himself going to the office every morning and sitting down at the office, or going through the same motions every day. And because he no longer — he found it was — well, it was dull to just flip from place to place and be in this place and be in that place and look at this and look at that. He finally conceived it was dull or he let himself be talked into the fact that he conceived it was dull or something of the sort. And as he did this, he said, "Now, the best thing to do is give myself some limitation of motion. And the best way to limit motion is to be carried various places by something which is itself destructible."

There you go. You've suddenly delivered into his hands a certainty.

Now, he forgets this and he starts walking up and down the street with a body. And you see, he takes the body here and he takes the body there, and then after a while the body's taking him there, and the body's taking him elsewhere. And you ask him to be three feet back of it, and he sits there waiting for the body to move him out of the back of his head. You actually can exteriorize somebody once in a while by saying, "All right, now have the body put you out back of your head."

Now if you ask him, "Are you three feet back of your head?" he looks around and doesn't see anything. Of course it's he that is looking around and him he is expecting to see. And of course he can't see him, so he's in a state of unknowingness to a point where he's very uncertain. And when somebody's back of his head being very uncertain — you know, he knows he exteriorized in there for a moment and then he becomes very uncertain — it's usually because the auditor is asking too many puzzling or upsetting questions about his location.

I was exteriorizing a case like this not too long ago .. . (You mind if I tell this?) And — exteriorizing a case not too long ago, and was getting along fine and used that technique: "Now have the body put you behind the head. Now put you back in your head." "Now put you behind your head," and so forth. A lot of effort on this case.

Because this person, if he's going to be uncertain, is already trying to make come true this line: "I am energy. I am an object. See, I have become something." And anytime somebody's trying to make that line come true, we're having a little trouble. Because the fact of the matter is, he's thought and he is personality and so on. But he doesn't think he's a personality and he thinks he's just a concept and he's real upset, and life looks very confusing to him at that moment when he suddenly arrives three feet back of his head, pong!

And all of a sudden, he said to me, he says, "My body isn't doing it!" See, he was real, real determined about this. And the determination, it was a great certainty. No, his body wasn't doing it. And after that, why, with a little more work with effort and so forth, why, he exteriorized.

Very often people arrive three feet back of the head and the auditor asks them, "Now are you three feet back of the head?" And the fellow thinks for a moment, "I wonder if I am, let's see." And he starts looking around for himself or he starts looking at the body. Well, we don't even want him to look at the body.

But after — I shouldn't tell this! This is the darnedest thing that ever happened. After he was well exteriorized and so forth, why, he was sitting back of his head very nicely, and he was fine. He reached up like this with his hand and all of a sudden goes, crunch! He tried to catch himself with his own hand, and he saw his hand closing on him, as a thetan! (audience laughter)

There's nothing wrong with his looking at the body. But the technique would even work better if you were to suddenly ask him, "Now are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room?" Just completely removed, see? "Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room? Are you in the upper left-hand corner of the room?" It's where are you not that we're interested in. "Are you in the lower left-hand corner of the room? The other lower left-hand corner of the room? No? Well, are you in the back upper right-hand corner? The back upper left-hand corner? The back lower left-hand corner? The back upper right-hand corner? Oh, you're not in any of those points? You're sure of that now?"

Now, that gives you some idea about the validation of the body to a point where the piece of machinery, you see — it's supposed to work on an automatic basis and it goes on a different circuit. But that is only a very humorous part of the same thing.

Well, the guy says, "Well, of course, there it is! I can't be in it because I'm where I am because I'm not in it!"

This happens quite ordinarily in Theta Clearing. The body has done so much for somebody, and it is so much a piece of automaticity, that he has this problem of, it must move him out. And then when it can no longer do anything for him, then the auditor somehow or other must move him out.

See, it's very simple. He's very, very happy about this.

There isn't any reason why he really just can't be out, beyond this: he's set up this machinery. Well, it's set up to run that way, and so it's got to be undone the same way it's done. You undo magic by running, vaguely — but not in a time sense — but you've got to run somewhere close to a parallel of how it was done. And you just undo it, just backwards. So now he's got to have somebody else move him around or something else move him around, which is characteristic of an automatic society. He has an auditor, and the auditor's moving him around. Because when a fellow sets himself up as an auditing machine, that is really something.

And if you were to process a preclear whereby you didn't let him look at his body .. . You see, here's the chance of it: you can take a guy who's in terrifically good shape already and say, "Be three feet back of your head. Now are you there?"

And if you want to get some line charges out of some of these people present, just have them run, on the second step, "auditing machines." And if somebody's been self-auditing a lot, have him run "a self-auditing machine." Believe me, he's got one — it's his body. And you wonder why he doesn't get out of it. Well, he's automatically auditing himself.

And the fellow says, "Sure."

Well now, here's this darn machine that moves him into various places. He wants to be told to go. So he, long ago, has set up a machine which will send him to places where he thinks of. You know? He thinks of Paris, and the machine sends him to Paris. In other words, he sets up a relay that puts him in Paris when he thinks of Paris. Because he has the idea of having to be moved. There's no reason why he can't just say, "Paris." He knows if he wants to be in Paris, and he's in Paris. That's all there is to that. So you just clip out the machine. Otherwise it'll continue to baffle you on Step I — "Where do you think you're not?" You get that now?

And then say, "Well, be here and be there and be someplace else." But you're already treating somebody who has a remarkable sense of location.

"Where do you think you're not?"

So let's just alter the technique and the understanding of the technique to a point where you can take in the fellow who's uncertain and then never pay any attention to whether people are uncertain about it or not. Don't validate all this uncertainty and "I don't know," and "Is he sure?" and so forth.

And the fellow says, "Well let's see, Paris? Yes."

And if you were to take a Step V and you were just to ask him that and he did it — you see, very uncertain, very nebulous, as sure of his form — he's standing in back of his body with another body. You can ask him to put his hands on his body's shoulders sometimes. I find out they can usually do that. They put their hands — they've got a body, you see, a mock-up of a body, and they operate the second body instead of the first one.

Well, this starts to get very mysterious to him, too. See, it gets peculiar to him after a while. He doesn't realize the machine's in action.

Well, that's all very well, but you might have that case. And just on the chance that you might have that case, we'll just throw aside any opportunity to spoil that case. If a guy is well located, it's all right to say, "Now, are you back of your head?" See? That's all right — if he's well located.

Now, you're going to tell some preclear to unmock something and it'll promptly disappear. And nobody will be more surprised than the preclear. The thought to make something disappear, on his part, when given to him by the auditor and translated into his energy, triggers his machine and away it goes!

But supposing you took somebody that was a Step XVIII and you says, "All right, now, be three feet back of your head," and he was feeling pretty good that day, and he was, and then you said, "Are you there?"

Now, one of the reasons a person wants to be so darn secret about his machinery and his equipment and what he's really doing, and why he's hiding even from himself and from a body and from everything else, is because you could actually walk around and trigger people's automaticities.

He says, "Oh, I don't know. Let's see, I don't see me anyplace. Well. . ." See, because his whole orientation is a complete dependency upon barriers in which he isn't. His orientation depends upon knowing where he is not.

And you wanted to look hard enough and search hard enough and tune your wave bands up delicately enough, and if you were good enough, you'd simply be able to trigger their automaticities. They run like a bunch of puppets on a string when you do this. You can walk down the street (pardon me, walk down the street — you sail down the street and — just above people's heads or something like that) and every once in a while shift your beam around till you find it, bong, you see? And set somebody's automaticity up that tips their hat. And they, right out in the empty air, will tip their hat. Most surprised preclear ...

So if you're going to run this step generally and smoothly in a clinic where you're just going to start gunshotting people and not going to worry about their states of case beyond particularly this and that — you're just going to walk right in on this one. You're going to say, "All right, now be three feet back of your head. Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room?"

When I was first researching this — I should give you a little research case that happened on that. I found out that they were using ridges — instead of moving their arms, people were using ridges to move their arms. People have two or three different kinds of systems to handle the body. And one of these cases of handling ridges, I told this person to simply put a beam — they were outside and in front of themselves, so I said well now ... That's, by the way, a difficult position to get most preclears in. When they're real good off, why, they go into it easily, but a lot of them have the Assumption in restimulation. They've got an old theta body right in front of their face and it has a vacuum in it. And other people occupy this space all the time out in front of you, you see, so you begin to think of it as other people's space.

Well, the fellow would kind of think — might be upset by the abruptness of the question, but he'd look at the upper right. . . "No. I'm not in it. What's the matter with you?"

Well, anyway, this girl beamed this thing on her shoulder and almost dislocated her right arm. "Well," I said, "with a little more caution, put some energy into the little ridge which is on the left shoulder." And she put some energy into it and the arm flew up again. So I said, "Now selectively start beaming these various ridges on these arms." And, of course, the motion was very random and very hectic for a short time, but she was able to sort out the exact ridges which she energized in order to lift teacups, in order to do this, in order to do that.

"Are you up in the right-hand corner?"

And this preclear got more fascinated — they practically could see them out in front of their body, you know, sitting there saying, "Gee, that's interesting," and punching another ridge. "Gee, that's interesting," and punching another ridge and seeing what happened to the arm, see? Examining their own anatomy — just as though they hadn't set it up.

"No. I'm not in it."

Of course, after she'd done this for a little while and got back into her body again, she fully expected, having blown up a lot of these ridges, that the body couldn't do this. So she had to concentrate, for a very short time, in order to lift a teacup — a split second.

"Well, give me the back upper left-hand corner. You in it?"

It's very funny. We found out afterwards this ridge was so darn prominent and so on, that in washing dishes she very often broke cups. Fascinating, wasn't this? She very often broke cups. She had a ridge that lifted a teacup delicately and gently while she conversed elsewise. Blew it up, and she stopped breaking teacups. Okay.

"No. No!"

The gain on this is apparently a negative gain, meaning you have less, but actually have more. So these two systems interlock.

"Are you in the floor? Are you under the chair?"

And I told you this morning how to run out a machine. One of the first things you have to do is find out what kind of a machine are you looking at. And you tell the person to "Be here" and "Be there" and you all of a sudden find that he's going automatically or that he's just fixed — he's going noplace. He can't get out of his head. Well, that's "attention too dispersed, attention too fixed." It's being done on an automatic principle — what is he doing?

"No. No. No. No."

You ask him to put his attention on space and it collapses on the object in the center of the space. Or his attention on the space and it collapses immediately in front of the object, see? What's he doing? Or you ask him to put his attention on the space on either side of an object and all of a sudden the object disappears. What are you basically dealing with, with those three tests?

All of a sudden, why, he announces to you without being asked, "I'm three feet back of my head." Or you can mention to him, "Be there."

Now, what are the tests? The test, very simple, is "Now put your attention on the object. Okay. Now put your attention on the spaces on either side of the object. Now put some emotion in those two spaces on either side of the object." That really puts his attention on it.

Now, there's a very covert way of running this. That, actually, is the best way of running it. But there's a very covert way of running it whereby you say — you just don't tell the fellow to be out of his body, you simply say, "Are you in the upper right-hand corner of the room? Upper left-hand corner of the room? Are you in the lamp?" you know? "Where are you not in this room?"

And he says, "I don't know, every time I try to do that the object becomes brighter," or "the object splits in half," or "the object gets smaller," or "my attention seems to snap in just beyond the object."

And let him name off a few places and look around and he names off a few more.

This is merely a symptom of how much space he's able to spread his attention over. That's all it's a symptom of. That means he's gotten barriers to the point where he hasn't anything else but barriers. He hasn't got any space between barriers anymore. He's got lots of barriers and nothing between the barriers.

And then you ask him a few more where he is not, and where he is not, and then you say, "Well, are you in your feet?"

Now, you want to give him something between the barriers. The best way to do that is to make it possible for him to handle barriers. All right. So we put his attention on either side of it, find out what he does. And you will just have to guess what the machine is, that's all. Don't ask him. He won't look at it. That's the one thing he's trained not to do.

"No."

He — always with a great surprise — great surprise, his attention snaps together. Just — you see, this is a very simple thing you're doing here. His attention snaps together on the far side of the object, and you say, "Well, now let's run a machine. Let's waste a machine that concentrates for you." And he does that very happily.

And, "Knees?"

But he's very puzzled as to how you possibly guessed this. Concentrates, be damned. You're just looking at a superfixed attention, which is so superfixed it doesn't even hit the object, it sort of squeezes the object in and locks on the other side of it, or locks on the near side of it. "Now let's get a machine . . ."

"No."

Now, this other fellow: you say, "Look at the object." He doesn't. Every time he looks at the object his attention flies out on either side of it. What kind of a machine is that? You tell me.

"Elbow? Either elbow?"

Male voice: No-concentration machine.

"No."

That's right. A machine which keeps him from concentrating.

"Hand?"

But that's rather condemnatory. "A machine which makes it possible for you not to concentrate" is the polite way to, you know, tell the preclear. And that's it. "A machine that makes it possible for you not to concentrate all the time." Because that's his automaticity. That's real cute, see.

"No."

He could run this machine over here, and he doesn't have to look at it. So he gets the machine set up that fixes it up so that some attention will go on to this machine; he doesn't have to look at it and he's got it all rigged up so he doesn't have to look at anything. Whoo! All of a sudden, why, that's what happens. But he tells you, "All right."

"Shoulders?"

You say, "Put your attention on either — on the space on either side of the object." What happens? The object disappears. What's he got? What's he got? Puts his attention on either side of the object and the object disappears. What's he got?

"No."

Male voice: I'd say he's got a machine that keeps him from putting his attention on the object.

"Nose?"

Well, that's basically true. But what would you say he had?

"No."

Second male voice: A machine to make things disappear.

"Chin?"

That's right. See, it's simpler than you've said. Much simpler. It's something that unmocks things.

"No."

And a person like this feels that he has to look solidly and hard at mest and keep his attention on it very carefully, or it'll disappear. And he's sort of got the feeling like he's got one finger in one corner of the room and one finger in the other corner of the room, and if he suddenly released his fingers the whole mest universe would collapse. It won't.

"Back of your head? Are you in the back of your head?"

So he's got this, and mest disappears when he takes his attention off of it. And he wears glasses in order to see MEST or he has corneas so he won't have to see mest. He's trying to handle a machine that is handling something, by handling it with another machine. He's got a machine starting something and another machine stopping something. He always has this. Anything you can say about any machinery, he's always got a machine doing the opposite someplace. It'll show up sooner or later.

And the fellow's saying, "I don't know."

So, all right. We have any one of these machines. Now, we tell him to put his attention on the object and he says, "Yes. Yeah, all right."

"Well, are you in front of your head?"

"Well, does your attention snap in when you put it on either side of the object? Does it snap in on the object?"

"No."

"No."

"Are you in the middle of your head?"

"Well, put it on the object. Does it slide out any?"

"No."

"No."

"Are you in the back of your head?"

"Does it converge in front of it?"

"No."

"No. What are you trying to do?" he'll say.

"Are you on the back of your head?"

"Converge behind you?"

"No."

"No, it's just the object," so forth.

He's out of his head. How'd he get there? You just moved him out by a gradient scale of where he isn't. Because every time you asked him about this, he looked to see if he was there. Cute, huh? And then he found he wasn't there.

What's the matter with him?

Now, you can take the darkest case that ever walked in and ask him to find four places he is not, in the darkness. He'll start to get somatics and things; because he knows he's not in the darkness, because he can see the darkness.

Male voice: He's got a mock-up machine.

By the way, most occluded cases, you say, "Can you see anything?"

No. He's just real satisfied with that mest universe machine he's got. He wouldn't disturb it for worlds. You know? He's all very complacent about the whole thing. Of course he doesn't have much motion or action, see? In other words, he isn't having any trouble with attention — he thinks. All he can see is the mest universe. Remember that.

And they say, "No."

Now, don't come around saying to somebody after he gets out of his body that it's dull. Of course it's dull. The only set of barriers he has are mest universe barriers. He can't interpose or eradicate barriers at will. And if he can't do that, he can't pick up any randomity anyplace. You see that? He's satisfied with a barrier. In other words, he's got an automaticity in perfect balance. But yet, that would be a real good Homo sap. Kind of bored, but real good Homo sap. And that would be so high above normal or above average in the society that you could hardly reach it with a rocket plane.

You say, "Close your eyes. Can you see anything?"

Male voice: What had the preclear ought to see?

And they say, "No."

Hm? What's this?

And you say, "Now look, close your eyes. Now look around and see if you can see anything."

Male voice: What had the preclear ought to see? What's the right one you ask him to put his attention on then?

They tell you, "No."

There is no right one. Of course.

Well, don't pick up an inkstand, an ashtray, a lamp and hit them with it. Say, "Now, come on, can you see anything — black or white or blur . . ."

Second male voice: It'd have to be right.

"Oh, well, yes. I got tremendous clouds of blackness."

Male voice: See an improvement.

They never looked at it before. That's anything, that's something. See, and they keep telling you, "No, I can't see a thing. No, I can't see a thing."

The next thing you would ask that fellow is say, "All right, now as you sit there, see if you can't — there's a bolt there on the side of that machine — now see if you can see the machine without the bolt being there." Gradient scale, see?

They're looking right straight at huge white clouds or huge black clouds or blurred fields or something, right straight on through. See that? That's real silly. They are looking at something — they're looking at a black field. Well, there's something.

He'll say, "Yep."

All right. As soon as a case suddenly decides that everything is black when he's got his eyes closed, and he's very befuddled as to why you're beating him around about looking — he'll be in the corners of the room with his eyes shut — why, he will generally fess up and tell you, "Well, the field is black. It's black, I can't see anything." Providing you've run this exteriorization type of drill — locational drill. You've made him look or feel enough so that he is aware of — he has some sense of location. He knows he is not somewhere. Well, boy, that's more than he knew two seconds before you asked this question.

"All right. Now see if you can see the machine without the upper part of it there — being there. Just make it go thin. See if you can get that a little bit thin — the upper part of the thing. Now let's see if you can make it thicker. Now make it thinner. Now make it thicker. Now make it thinner. Now make it thicker. Thinner. Thicker. Thinner. Thicker."

And this is good enough when applied to past, present and future, in brackets — this little technique of "Where are you not? Who is not here? Who is not in the past? Who" — so on. "What other people aren't here that think some­body else is here?" That, by the way, is — you very often get a little flip on that because that's the rest of the bracket. When you ask all around the clock on this, that's a good enough technique — that's one of these "all by itself" techniques — that's a good enough technique to fish Homo sapiens out of his spinbin.

And all of a sudden, pang! he has control of the thing. He can say, "It isn't there," and it's not there. And he can say, "It's there" and it's there.

Now, you understand the process? The process is "Where are you not in the past? Where are you not in the present?" And "Where are you not in the future?"

Soon as he's controlled this type of an operation, he can mock and unmock a mest universe barrier at will, at least for himself. And you do this with walls, and you do this with people, and you do this with other things, and then you can do it with his own body.

Now, there's something else: "Where aren't you thinking?" must accompany this, to a person who is having any slightest difficulty. Because they may be thinking all over the place.

Or you can start out with his own body first — "Now get your nose not being there. Unmock your own nose." See? You can unmock the whole body and just leave the preclear sitting there two feet above the chair. There's the essence of the situation. Because he's depending on this to locate him so thoroughly, that his whole track is jammed. You see how that is? This person's very satisfied with this — that's just fine — that tells him where he is.

We've been using a phrase to characterize this, which is "buttered all over the universe." Somebody's buttered all over the universe. Well, you collect him by finding out where he isn't. And when you first start in, you'll find the damnedest things are — in some cases are present, and other people are present, and he's in the past and there isn't anyplace in the past where he's not. And he'll start agreeing with you. You — and one of the methods of using this, by the way, is picking apart the childhood home. All right. "Are you in the linoleum of the kitchen of your childhood home?"

He shouldn't need this to tell him anything about where he is. He should be able to see it or unsee it at will. Right?

The fellow will say, "Yup." Be the normal reaction. I mean, that's normal, almost.

Male voice: What's the scoop when your auditor asks you to unmock it and nothing happens, and a split second later you forget that he asked you, and then it unmocks?

"Are you in the wall closet?"

I would say this was just difficulty in shifting attention. I — tell you what I did to somebody that had this "lag" happening, very short time ago — this little lag, little lag. He kept remarking on these little lags. "Now get a machine that checks it over and makes sure it's all safe before you do it." Does that hit you?

"Yes. Yeah."

Male voice: Yeah.

"Are you in the window in the front room — in the glass itself?"

Okay. That's an automatic checking machine — little time lag in it.

"Yes. Ow!"

Well, now there's a tremendous variety out of these simplicities. But it's just — you just hit it on the button. Or hit it way off the button — waste any kind of a machine.

You found him. He, fifteen minutes, at two years of age, had his hand pinned down under a window which had dropped on his hand. Scared stiff. And he's been there ever since. You sprung him. Sometimes you have to be terribly covert to get them out of places — you have to name the most unlikely spots.

Now, what ways do you use in doing this? First, is you can make the preclear do it and then not do it, and do it and not do it, until he's thoroughly doing this at will. Got that? That's the first step, always. In other words, you just make him do it instead of the machine do it. The machine will do this, sooner or later.

Now, that's just "Where you are not," past, present and future. Now, you could actually just go right ahead and clean up a whole track on this negative location. Take you a long time. But it'd be a technique which would carry you through. It'll snap out somatics, so on.

By the way, he's got a machine that sets this up, this tells you that sooner or later that damn machine is going to stop setting it up for him. You get that? He's very satisfied with the way that sits there. Well, that's just fine. What childish dependency. Sooner or later, why, he's going to start looking around, when he gets to be a few years older or something like that, and he's going to say, "What wall?" He doesn't garnish this in any way — he doesn't — it's just there. This is the practical, matter-of-fact person. And as he goes along in life, the whole universe starts to slide out from underneath him because he's just stopped leaning on it, he's just lying down completely. It tells him what to eat and what to wear and where to go and what to do. It evaluates for him.

The fellow says, "I have a headache."

Now, evaluation is this — evaluation, the definition of evaluation, is changing position in space. That's basically evaluation, see? If something can change a person's position in space, then, that person — depends on the intention — but that person, of course, can then evaluate for the individual.

You say, "All right. Where don't you have a headache?"

You don't get this very much — an auditor — there's Change of Space Processing. An auditor says, "Be here, be there, be someplace else," and so forth. For the first few minutes after the session, if the preclear's been very concentrated on the session, the auditor's word has carried a lot of weight with him. It fades right away because, of course, the intention behind it is simply to return self-determinism, not to interrupt it. So you get — a guy will get another postulate in the road of the natural consequence of this. Well, why do you think Mama evaluates for the body? The body was carried around in a womb all over the place by Mama, then packed all over the place as an infant by Mama, and then Mama finally says, "Well, I remember when you were a little girl, such and such happened and so-and-so happened," (and it didn't happen at all, by the way) "and you were so-and-so, and I was so-and-so and you said so-and-so, and you used to have curls until you were nine."

"Where don't I have a headache? In my feet, of course."

And the fellow says, "Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yes, Mama. Yes, Mama. Yes, Mama."

"Well, all right. Do you have a headache in your feet?"

His memory is a thousand times better than his mother. You process some preclear, you run through birth, you find out there was nitrous oxide used in birth and so forth. Preclear goes home. Mama says, "Why, there wasn't any anesthetic used at all in birth. I just lay there and screamed, and they didn't pay any attention to me."

"No!"

And the preclear comes back to you and says, "Well, you couldn't have run birth. It must have been a delusion as far as I was concerned, you see, because actually, I..."

"Well, do you have a headache in your right ear?"

And you say, "Did you talk to your mother about this?"

"No."

He says, "Yes."

"Left ear?"

Well, you're not in a position to evaluate for him the way Mama can. Because Mama's carried him around all over the shop. You see that?

"No."

This stuff is saying, "Here you are, there you are, there you're someplace else, now you're someplace else, now you're someplace else, now you're someplace else," all the time, see — 100 percent evaluation! Boy, after a while this stuff becomes thick, heavy. You don't have to make any effort at all to keep from seeing through it. And as a matter of fact, once in a while you'll be a little tired . . .

"Do you have a headache in the back of your neck?"

The way it ought to be is once in a while you're a little tired, something like that, you have trouble watching a television set. Because you're thoughtless about the whole thing — in other words, you don't have any real intention — just go over and sit on the television stage and watch the actual play rather than look at it coming through the set. Just rack around until you've got the actual television stage, look at it. It's in color, no flicker, no interference. Much better.

"Well, slightly."

And then you go a further stage than that. If you sit there, and you're bound and determined to sit there in your own home and watch a television set, which is the purpose that you're doing, why, you're liable to — if you're a little bit tired and aren't watching quite what you're doing — simply actually watch the television, not the screen. In other words, look at the cathode ray emanation point a foot or two back of the front screen. And you're — you watch this terrifically concentrated tiny scanner. There's a picture back there. I mean, it looks just as good as any other place.

"Well, do you have a headache in your collarbones?"

And by the way, you have other troubles with television: if you get too concentrated on the screen itself, you'll start wiping it, if you've got any power. I mean, that is MESTwise.

"No."

I mean, you can set up enough vibration in the thing to upset it. Or you can turn the screen on and off, after it's been turned off. That is to say, you can make it glow. Get it in a dark room — you can make it glow and then go faint and glow and go faint — actually glow and go faint. Somebody else comes along, you know, and sees the thing and there's the television set lighting up and going dark again. This is very upsetting to people. Well, it's not much of a trick if you've watched a lot of television, because you're fixed on that wavelength. Easy, huh?

"Well, do you have a headache in the back of your neck?"

But as long as this stuff is all there is evaluating for you, you of course get completely mest values across the boards. Then you've limited your ability to this limit: that anything you use or believe in has to be constructed by the same methodology that constructed this. And that, in essence, is what's wrong with the engineer. See that?

"No."

There's no reason why, for instance, you can't mock up a motorcycle and go down the road at 185 miles an hour on a motorcycle that runs far better than any motorcycle you ever ran into that was built out of this stuff. Might run a lot better. You could probably make out a noisier one too, oddly enough.

"Do you have a headache in your chin?"

Male voice: Wouldn't break any rods either.

"Nobody has 'headaches in your chin.' What's the matter with you?"

That's right. You could probably make a noisier one. Oddly enough you could probably make a far noisier one than people would tolerate in your neighborhood. Of course that's not in the bargain, not in the contract here — I'm going to teach you all how to be noisy ghosts and clank chains. But we can. That's a real trick — you just mock up the sound waves.

"All right. Do you have a headache in your nose?"

How do sound waves mock up? Well, you have to know what they look like. Well, how do you find out what they look like? Well, you look at them, of course.

"Mm, no."

Now, the motto — the motto in this First Unit was: "Don't think about it, look at it." Second Unit too. "Look, don't think. Look."

"Well, do you have a headache?"

You find out every time you make a mistake around, it will be because you didn't look. Every time you've made a mistake with machinery, equipment — busted something, something of the sort, it's because you didn't look at it. You should have looked at it. You know, just get back and say, "I am now looking at it." And then let a machine look at it for you, such as ... (audience laughter)

"No. Wait!" (audience laughter)

The body, for instance, is an automatic seeing eye dog. And you know how you actually see with a body? You drop a little gold plate over the front of each eye. And you know how you hear with it? You drop a little hearing point over each eardrum. Real cute. And you know how you feel with it? You drop a feeling point over each fingertip and along each nerve course. Then you forget that you dropped them there, and your eyesight deteriorates, and you try to beat up the mest eyes in order to see better. And what's pushed them in is the anchor points which you've got tied in there too tight.

You just put him in present time by calling his attention on negative reac­tion to present time. That's real covert, isn't it?

Now, you say to somebody, "Why don't your eyes get better?" all the time. And the fellow goes on trying to adjust his body's eyes. And up to the time when you finally work him on a drill, and where you mock up a couple of eyes, couple of viewpoints, a little disk — or you mock up a couple of viewpoints, and send them here, and then mock up an optic nerve from the viewpoint to where he is and let him look into the end of the optic nerve, and he sees the viewpoint, he says, "What do you know!" And then have him put a couple out here on his nose or a couple on his ears and look with those, simultaneously, down an optic nerve and around the corner, so on, on the other side of a barrier. And he looks down these things and he looks through these and, gee-whiz, he's looking out of each ear, and he's seeing a lot better than he ever saw with mest eyes. Why, he gets sort of — "So what the devil am I doing!"

Well, it's not a technique that wears out. Now many, many of the older techniques used on somebody once or twice would find him in a null. In other words, he'd learn how to resist these techniques. Actually, we ought to call 8-C "American procedure," because Americans are far faster at figuring out and countering effect. Now, that's the only difficulty I've been having since I came back. And so I just boosted it all up into techniques which can't be nulled. And that one can't be nulled.

So at last he will take a look at what he's looking with, and it'll be a couple of these disks. Only they're all twisted around and all upset and all wedged and driven in, in some fashion or another, so that he doesn't see well with them anymore. Because he's not taking any responsibility for them anymore — he's letting them all run automatic.

Also there is the technique we have, and are using right this minute on blackness, cannot be nulled. And the reason why: It is the reason there is blackness. It is the specific reason there is blackness.

When perception is done automatically, it deteriorates. When perception has deteriorated, it's been done too long automatically. That isn't, though, letting the body see for you. The body never did see for you. It never will. It's just a system that is utilized, and you know where to place these anchor points because it's made out of mest. So you put your viewpoints on the front of the eyes and go on looking through them. That's funny, isn't it?

Now, there's the specific reason why people aren't exteriorized, is the one which you're doing as a drill right now. Sensation — you've got to be an effect. So we just get rid of that. And we'll get rid of that.

Once in a while somebody has — the body puts one on a knee or something of the sort. And a preclear will have an interesting time — he's running around the body looking it over, and all of a sudden he's looking at the room. He's found one of the GE's viewpoints. It's real cute. Real messed up when it comes to straightening out perception without hitting automaticity.

By the way, somebody asked me yesterday ... I hope he doesn't mind if I tell this story. Where is he? Well, aha! Somebody missing a lecture?

Now, a process I want you to be — pay attention to, is you just diagnose what kind of a machine is interrupting beingness, see? Just interrupting this beingness.

Male voice: His fault.

What kind of a machine is it that keeps a person from turning on a sexual sensation in the wall? Simple? Now, you can remedy that simply by running a gradient scale and keying out the machine. You can run it by creating just — or just getting the preclear to do it, you know, gradient scale, until he can do it. Next, creating and destroying such a machine. Next, creating and destroying it in brackets. Next, and probably best for you, wasting, accepting, saving, desiring and being curious about, in brackets — bracket of five — such machines. Pang! Out they go. Boy, they're the easiest destroyed things you ever saw in your life.

Mm-hm. Just like that. All right, we'll tell it on him! That's always a good time — that's always the way to get somebody to come to a lecture. It's like the old boys — nobody'd ever leave the barbershop first.

Now, wiping out occlusion without treating the machines that make occlusion, makes a rough go for a preclear. I showed you that this morning, morning processing. Put the blackness on things. That's making the preclear do it.

Well, anyway, plugging along — "When are we going to get into some actual processing?" he says.

We're bucking right straight into the teeth of all automaticity with this process of putting emotion in mest. Right into the teeth of it.

And I said, "You are doing actual processing."

But it's time now that you put it into mest in brackets. Put emotion and all the things I've given you into mest in brackets. And where somebody is clearly bogged, why, the group involved and so on, should simply get him to waste the proper kind of a machine to square it up. And let's take out these reluctant pieces of machinery, the reluctant dragons, and give them a yo-heave. Got it now?

"Well, no, no," he said, "I mean real, real actual processing."

I want you to do that the rest of this afternoon and this evening. Okay.

"But you are doing actual processing now. This is actual."

"Now," he says — walk along a little bit further, and he says, "why don't you clean up the cases first and then give the data afterwards?"

And I said, "You have the specific data right now which you are using to clean up cases. Now that's what we're doing, we're cleaning up the cases first and we're going to get into theory afterwards."

Very unconvinced. He was very unhappy about this. He sat around the waiting room for a few minutes sort of champing a little bit and snarling quietly to himself. He goes into room one — you guys know what happened; he all of a sudden — never seen a wall on this technique.

He'd always looked at a facsimile which was standing immediately in front of the wall. Outside of the fact that this was — for the first time had returned to him an actual mest contact, we weren't getting anywhere with processing. But he'd only had two or three hours of the stuff and he was seeing mest. All right, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? That's actual processing.

So you're apt to treat these techniques as being very light. Because they are very high echelon, but they are very pervasive and they are not nulled. Now, you can't null these techniques. The only way you can null them is just refuse to answer. Just refuse to act. Just sit there rigidly and say, "I won't. I won't. I won't." And then you'll run that out. So that's why I say that we should call this "American procedure," because we're down to a basis of "What can't you know?" — not "What can't you know" but "What can't you null?" It's very important.

All right, so we've got this past, present and future. The reason why a person doesn't escape this technique easily is because they get too interested. Because there is their primary interest: their primary interest is where they are. You see, they're mainly interested in that, the second they become interested in barriers. And they're much more interested in not being places — if you're going to get a case that's going to resist processing, they're much more interested in not being places than they are in being places. So you've just agreed with them a hundred percent across the boards. They practically feel like gripping you by the hand and pumping it up and down for half an hour without stopping. Boy, you really get agreement right there with your pc: "Now, where are you not?"

"I'm not at home. Ha-ha!"

All right. Now, there's two tricks that go along with this one which you should know. Location — you'll need these; you won't think right now in this class that you need them, but you'll need them sooner or later — is "Negative Location by the Impossible." Now, it sounds like an impossible title, but you'd better call it that because you're liable to skip it. And that is "Are you in the office next door" or "Is your body in the office next door while it is in the dentist's office?"

The fellow says, "No, of course not."

But you might have been beating your brains out for ten minutes trying to find out where he was not during that operation or during that period of time, see? And then all of a sudden you have to just resort to the impossible in order to give him a certainty. And that certainty carries him forward. Impossible, see?

"All right. Were you in 1930 while you were in 1950?

"Well, I don't know."

"Well, all right. Were you in 1900 while you were in 1930?"

"Huh! Well, I don't know. Might have been. Let's see, 1900 . . ."

"Well, was your body in 1210 while you were going to college in 1940?"

"No. Of course not." (See? Now, you have to get that wide out some­times.) "No."

So you've got location by the impossible. Now you just start narrowing it down. And he starts spotting himself all over the time track, see? Real, again, covert — it's by the impossible.

And the other mechanism is that it's "by the incredible," which is, is his body lying on the ceiling during the operation?

"No."

All of a sudden you'll find out the fellow has no body in this operation. He's told you — the E-Meter — you've done an assessment on this case. This case got real sticky on you, you see, and so you did what you should have done in the first place, only we never seem to do it, is break out the E-Meter and just start naming dates. You know, and all of a sudden the E-Meter goes whong! And then you start naming different kinds of people that have been associated with him — children, women, men, so on — until you get a pong. And then you run that down and you chase it down — a date. In other words, you're finding out where he's stuck, where is he latched up on the track.

Remember Book One didn't happen to be wrong, it just didn't readily solve immediately this, because its techniques could be nulled by a preclear. That's the only disadvantage it had. But he — they're still stuck on the track somewhere and sometimes you'll process all over the place madly and find the case keeps slumping. Well, why does the case keep slumping? Well, he's stuck on the track and you've never freed him.

Well, you have to really address the incident where he is stuck. There's some other reason why he's stuck. He's fresh out of space and all sorts of things that a lot of indirect techniques — which will free him eventually, but you just get sick and tired of this case. A case has to be real bad off in order to do this. You do yourself a thorough assessment, find out what date he's stuck in. Just that, what date? And if you can't find it immediately this life, well then, damn it, what life?

He'll all of a sudden give you this wonderful piece of data that he should have given you very, very early in the session and that was, namely, he is always sitting there looking at his grandfather's face in the coffin. He has this visio all the time. Well, and he thought probably everybody had it, see? Everybody sitting there looking at Grandfather's face in the coffin. Doesn't strike him as unusual. It's too concentrated an attention so he can't think of where his attention's concentrated. You see that? So you find out where he's stuck on the track, and now you have to enter the incredible. If you said, "Are you there in the coffin with Grandfather?"

"Yep. Sure."

"Well, is Grandfather's body on the ceiling?"

"No. It's in the coffin. It's not on the ceiling."

"Is it in the lampshade?"

"No, it's in the coffin!"

You finally get Grandfather's body well enough located — so sure enough located — by the incredible; just by having it in the wrong places. You see, the impossible is to have two different times or two entirely different spaces simultaneously. The incredible is just to have in a space or a time which is not quite possible.

So he finally gets Grandfather's body to the grave, and then gets the town back where it should be, a thousand miles away. But you find out if he's in the coffin. Well, you can't.. . He'll tell you yes, he's in the coffin. Well, is he in the lamp? No, he's not in the lamp there.

By the way, I've found people in very weird places. I have found them in a picture in the living room. Found them all over the place, see? I found them in a picture of the living room. And the childhood home is the worst offender. It's a bad enough offender that, very often, if a case is starting to get laggardly or a little sticky on me, something like that, I'll just simply take the childhood home and start beating it up. You know, "Are you in the woodwork? Are you under the front porch? Are you in the chimney?" and so on. "Where are you not? Where are you not? Where are you not? Where are you not? Are you in the dish cupboard?" And you all of a sudden find out he's in strange places, in that moment. You'll find out you narrow it down to the room, and then you narrow the room out. And every once in a while you have to jump in with a new impossible. "All right, are you in the living room while you're in the dining room?"

"No. That's two places. Impossible."

"Well, all right. Are you in the childhood home? When was it built?" you say.

"Oh, it was built about 1890, I guess."

"Well, are you in the childhood home in 1870?"

"No, obviously — it wasn't built."

So that's very tricky auditing. You'll see more of that. But actually, it's very simple auditing even though it permits a lot of imagination to be used.

And remember it's used in a bracket. "Who else isn't present?" Well, by golly, you'd be amazed how many preclears have somebody else right there in front of them.

Now, there's another method of dispensing with this. It's just "certain they're present; certain they're not present." That's in 16-G. This is a better method, this method I'm giving you. You just have — "Well, is this person in Washington, DC?"

"No."

The person is present, they've just told you that.. . You just start going over the family. You've done an assessment and you've added up all the relatives and everything, and you just start going through them and you say, "Is so and so here? Is so and so here? Is so and so here?" You find their stuck moments this way too. You say, "Is your grandmother in the room?"

"Yes."

"Grandfather in the room?"

"Yes."

"Is your dog in the room?"

"Yes."

"Is your aunt Martha in the room?"

"It seems like everybody's in the room," they'll say. "Yeah. Full of people."

One case I had recently — there's one I was running to develop this procedure on how far south can you get, and I went as far south as I could get. When I hit that technique, I had: "Is there a TWA aeroplane, 10,000 feet up, on the chair immediately beside you?"

And the answer was, "Yes."

Huh? Real cute, huh? So we had to have her practically — we had her feel all over the chair and finally — then she tried to turn it all off by saying, well, she was just kidding. She wasn't kidding — that room was full of people when we started out, and we got it emptied. How? By making her feel all over the place and make sure. Well, her case did a quite remarkable — not an alteration physically, it did an alteration on the basis of orientation. The case is blind, so orientation is of the utmost importance there.

Well, you find these people that will surprise — even some of you right now when I say, "Is your dog in this room?" (pause) And who got a "yap-yap-yap"? (audience laughter)

So you see that? You just get places parked in the proper places. And it doesn't take very long. And I don't run this technique very long in order to produce a result with it.

"What other person here thinks somebody else is with them?" And that's a real weird one. You start — really, straight out — you just start stripping out entities by you doing that. Until you've asked that question, it never turned up that Grandma was present all the time. Well, Grandma is there, and she thinks Grandpa is there. And this was when the old lady was sort of senile, she used to go around talking to her departed husband and the kid heard them all the time and this was quite impressive. So the kid sort of kept Grandma when Grandma departed this life, and Grandma is keeping Grandpa, and here we go, see? And it opens on that third bracket, third part of the bracket. All right.

"What person present doesn't think you're here?" is another variation.

And they're liable to say, "The auditor." Quite routinely, people will say — "Well, who isn't here?" and quite routinely, just almost give as a flash answer: "The auditor." See? Almost as a flash answer. I — it probably has deep significance, but I've always neglected it.

That's location: "Who isn't in the past? Who isn't in the future? Who isn't in the present?"

Now, you want to know where they are and also where they are thinking. Got that? "Where aren't they thinking in the present?"

"Oh," the fellow says, "all around." He's got some sort of machine that lets him think elsewhere when he is there — when he thinks he might be there. And oh, he's all around.

"Well, are you thinking down at city hall?"

"Yeah."

"Are you thinking in 1892?"

"Yeah."

"Are you thinking . . ." you say, "Ulp! Are you thinking in last August?"

"Mm, yeah."

"Are you thinking in this room? (pause) Well, are you thinking in your head?"

"No."

"Are you thinking in your body?"

"No."

This is what's known as a negative dynamic. "All the way out" on spir­itualism produces that one. They're not in their body, and that's one place where they are not, only that's the only place they've got to think with. And you have to do quite some considerable coaxing, you have to go a long way out and start chipping it off and so forth, and they'll finally find out they're thinking in their head. They're just working with so darn much automaticity, that the one place they're not thinking is where they are thinking. See, a complete reversal. That's an inversion. So you'll run into that problem every once in a while. Not a very important problem. You just strip it off. All right.

"Are you thinking in . . ." There's another category there, and that's "by the dangerous" — where are they not, by the dangerous — dangerous location.

"Are they in the middle of a cutting machine?"

"No."

"Are they in the Camden sewer system?" Well, they might be.

"Well, are you down in the powerhouse, glued to the switchboard. Is that where you're thinking?"

"Oh, no!" (Big certainty, see?)

"Are you thinking in the — around the corona of the sun and into the corona of the sun?"

"No, no."

"Are you thinking in the Bureau of Standards chill room where they have a 273 degrees below zero centigrade?"

"Do they have one down there?" they'll say.

"Yep."

"No. I'm not thinking there."

See? And that gives you, by the way, the immediate clue as to how people take an impact. See, that immediate clue. That's why people prefer an impact. It tells them where they are not because it puts a dangerous place they mustn't be. And these people who have been having a tough time gathering themselves up and keeping themselves in one piece prefer to be driven into one piece. They think they have to be driven into one piece. They're in one piece in the first place. All right — or in six or eight or a hundred billion, as they prefer.

Now, all you're doing there is discovering where the preclear is by letting them discover where they are not. And the modus operandi of the whole process is just on the basis that he can't be where he is looking at. And you'll find out that people have big trouble with the body, and when you ask them to step out of their head and immediately look at the body, you very often completely collapse a case. They can't see their body. Well, you're asking them to see the one thing they've never seen. See, they can look at mirrors, do all sorts of things — tricky techniques involved with this, but nothing very workable. But they've never seen their body, they don't know what they look like, and it's a great surprise to them what they do look like.

Did you ever show anybody a photograph of his own profile? If you have, you will get some idea of what would be his reaction when you exteriorized him. Because he always tells you that doesn't look like him. He has never seen his own profile. He doesn't customarily stand and look at mirrors which converge and show him his profile. He has an entirely different idea of what he looks like.

In consequence, you ask him, "Look at the body," the surprise is generally too much for him, and he will immediately occlude it and shut it off. And then the body goes occluded, and then he pops back in and goes in kind of apathy about the whole thing. So you don't ask him to look at the body. Ordinarily, if you have any doubts about the case at all, why, you just don't ask him to look at the body. Not for a long time, not until you — you pop him out, if you can, right away, and then, "Where is he not?" Then if he doesn't go out, you say, "Where is he not?" You see that?

You do this anyway, and that gets him localized. And that's by location — location where he's not — and you'll find out that he's most not in locations that are dangerous to him, he feels.

And then he's in, then, those that are incredible to him: like, is he under the mattress on the upstairs bed? And he knows he's not there. He thinks that's silly of you to ask, but of course, he immediately turns up a little more horsepower — immediately afterwards. He can't quite account for this, but he does. All right.

The next part of location that you would want anything to do with is simply — actually, it goes on down to Step VII, which, of course, is, "What room?" — that's by actual contact. Now, we don't, however, have to treat that; because we are treating it with putting emotions into and out of things as a technique, which although we're covering it in advance, and very early in the case, it is not an early technique in the procedure itself.

So the next point is, you have him actually be in places after you've found places he is not in. You have him be in various places. He's out of his head and you get him — little unpleasant places, you know, under the radiator where it's kind of dusty or under the bed or under the icebox or back of the chimney or something of the sort. That'd be about the limit of the dangerous places you'd send him into.

Then you send him into very pleasant places. And you finally send him into more and more dangerous places, actually be in these dangerous places, until eventually he's perfectly willing to be in any of these places.

But quite often a case, you will discover, is unable to be in very many places. So you have to build this up by a gradient scale. And you've asked him to be in a place, and he can't be in that place, then you have some place very similar to it, but one tiny shadow of it, and you just build him on through into the place. In other words, if you couldn't possibly get him into the corona of the sun immediately, so forth, you could at least get him to mock up a candle and be near its flame and then finally be out near a gas stove that's being on and then finally into a gas stove.

And the technique of being in the corona of the sun finally is achieved by being what? Just gradient scale on up the line. A very simple process. A process I could very easily talk too much about — very easily.

Now, you should know this part of this process on Step I. You should know it quite well and you should become able to use it quite well. Because if you're going to do any coffee — what you call "coffee shop auditing," you know, you meet this fellow and he says — you ask him how he is and he tells you that he has a neck pain, and he expects you to turn it off or something of the sort — well, this is the fastest, easiest way to do it. That's no kidding. "Where isn't he?" And you can run "Where isn't he?" all over the darn track. And quite rapid in the therapeutic value, if you're going into therapy of aches and pains.

That's a dirty trick, by the way. If you only knew how a thetan has to work to get a little bit of an ache or a pain and then you, you beast, comes along and turns it off! Psychotherapy went into complete apathy on this. They said, "No" — they made this announcement many times — "No psychosomatic illness is curable because the person simply becomes psychosomatically ill in some other manner." Apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy, apathy. End of paragraph. Apathy, apathy, apathy.

The fact of the matter is, the remedy for the situation is a very easy remedy. You just make it possible for him to get walloping big loads of tremendous, creaking agony, and he won't bother with having a little old — little old psoriasis or something like that, that occasionally gives him a twinge. He's interested in having a satisfactory amount of pain. Well, if he can't manufacture it — a satisfactory — pardon me, an "acceptable state of ill health" in this society. How wrong can you get? Homo sap. You have to be a little bit wrong to be polite, and it goes down from there. You have to be a little bit sick to be acceptable. People figure this.

And you start running Acceptance Level Processing — which is an educational on a process — and you start running it, you know, and my God, Papa and Mama, the only thing that was acceptable to them was a sick child. The only time they ever were nice was when the child was sick — horrible state. All right.

That's a rundown on this locational material there. This can become very, very complex. But, by golly, learn its simplicity.

All you're doing is getting relationship of the individual with regard to barriers. And it's achieved by getting barriers which he isn't in. And then you can have him around in barriers, and he'll know he's in them. See? Tricky.

But remember all the time you're running this, that you're only running barriers and validating barriers so he can recover the barriers which he has validated, and which he has then had invalidated for him to a point where he lost them. And you've recovered a barrier for him good and strong, don't just dust your hands off and say you got this barrier strong. He knows the barrier's there. Then we get onto the technique that you're doing right now: you finally get him to a point where he knows he's putting it there. And that's the drill which you're doing these first couple, three days.

Well, you got to get it real good. Because, you see — not just emotion, that isn't our goal there. We're going to get so we can put the barrier there, where we can move the wall of that room around, so we can not have it there and have it there and so on. That's what we're trying to do.

All right. Step II of this will, of course, be the subject of the next lecture.