The genus of computation, then, is: "Is there a hidden influence or isn't there a hidden influence?" In other words, "I don't know and I'm not sure." And the way to — and the way to set up, then, and run out all the computations in the bank would actually be to run up this doubt. "Is there a hidden influence?" versus the doubt, "Is there a hidden influence?" Double Terminal, in other words, as thought. "Is there or isn't there?"

Okay.

The darnedest things will fall out in the fellow's lap because you've just pulled the bathtub plug on every circuit he's got. Every circuit he's got is based upon that thought: "Is there a hidden influence or isn't there a hidden influence?" And what do you mean by hidden influence? That — it means communication, then, that means beingness. "Is there, in that blackness, a beingness I do not know about?"

The main difficulties that the auditor has is to force somebody just to give him a little attention. That's the first thing. So, that becomes part of an auditor's skill, then, is to attract attention.

Now, I'll tell you about blackness. You have a lot to do with blackness, a lot of worry about blackness. Why? Because blackness is hard to tell apart; therefore, it identifies with each other.

How do you attract attention from your preclear? Well, one of the easiest things to do is to be what he is for a moment and do what he's doing. Imitate him, in other words. Mimic him somewhat, a little bit. In other words, agree with him. "Yes. Yes. Yes. Your mother beat you. Yes. Yes. Your father beat you. Yes. Your schoolmaster beat you. Yes. Well, all schoolmasters are pigs. Yeah, they're all dogs. That's right. Yeah, they beat you and it was your early life. I know it's the tendencies toward homosexuality in the school that did it all. Yes, yes. Mm-hm. Oh, that's very — that's a very, very unusual case. Oh, very unusual. In fact, you're probably the most unusual case I have had since half an hour ago. Yes. Yes. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, what was that again? Oh, you meant — you meant that was your mother and father that beat you. Oh? Oh, yes. Yes. Yeah, it was your mother and father that beat you. Now, the rest of the family, they kind of mean to you too? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Well, where was your family located?"

You want to know why you want an identity? Why you're carrying a face around? You know a face is a terrible liability, like fingerprints — bad liability.

You've got him! You see, you've just changed his course just a little bit — changed the course of his plunge on communication and you've agreed with him and he has the full secure feeling now that he can be you at any moment. That is an underlying something or other. He can be you at any moment, you see. And then, imperceptibly, you just reverse the poles on him and you have him be something else.

The soul doesn't have a face; it doesn't want one. You don't even want to concern yourself for two seconds with this idea of an identity, "My name is Jones," and yet you think it's terribly desirable. You actually have this feeling, an enormous desire to have an identity.

Do you explain anything to him? No. You just ask him how good he is at this sort of thing. You just want to check up and find out how bad it all has been. And you give him the processing, and you can let him wait in vain to be processed. You can go on testing him and checking him for many hours. Interesting, isn't it? That's something that's quite interesting.

What happens to a man who is trying to get famous? You know, for a long time I've been scared stiff that somebody someplace or other would really nail down this work. And sure enough, once in a while it kind of starts to happen this way. And that's because they might as well take you out and shoot you.

An inanimate object is the best for you to use, particularly inanimate objects that inflict injuries and so on. You'll find that he very occasionally gets somatics as he runs these things. That's because the objects which you have run him into have hurt him.

Identification is solid, immovable, not fluid, has nothing to do with motion. I'm very fond of motion. I like to move around. And what do we find here when we — when we get identification? We find no motion.

Do you let him hold on to these things and get sympathy for them and that sort of thing? No, you just have him be something else. You find out he can't be something as a whole, then find him — have him be parts of it.

Well, why would you want to saddle yourself with this? Why would you want to saddle yourself with this identity? And what is this thirst for identity, and what is this thirst for fame? And what is this ambition "I've got to amount to something. I've got to be something."

Now, he's afraid of turning into things. So don't — don't scare him. Don't bother to scare him. The rest of the world is busily engaged in scaring him. You don't have to, too. He's afraid of turning into things. And the funny part of it is, he will go ahead processing on the sixth dynamic completely unaware of the fact that he has really fallen into your net beautifully. He'll go ahead on this. At any moment you're liable to get down to the more serious things in his case, but you just want to check him first. Any moment you're going to address this horrible problem of the fact he's liable to turn into Papa, see? Any moment you're liable to go into that. But this gives him an anxiety. That's right. It gives him an anxiety to go on and be these things. Be these innocent, mild, quiet things.

Was it something somebody implanted in you? No, it wasn't. You did it yourself.

Now, that is, actually, not particularly covert. But it just happens to be handling his wits. There isn't any reason why any human being, once you've got this down and once your own case is up along the level, should ever disagree with you again as long as you live.

You could say this: The whole thing is done by mirrors. It's all done by mirrors. You'll find your preclear, by the way, sitting around with mirrors around him. If you wanted to really startle your preclear, you say, "Look to the left and right and tell me what you see?" And a lot of your preclears will suddenly say, "You know, I see a . . . There is a mirror sitting down on the floor, and I am reflected in it." He'd say, "I never noticed this before. Why, there's one out in front of me! Why, there's one behind me."

Now, nonadmiration for these MEST things, toward him, has put him into a level where he believes he is no good. But he'll get proud of himself after a while for being able to be with such expertness. So give him some praise. Give him some praise. Work it on the praise basis a little bit. All of a sudden he says to you rather interestedly, "You know, you know, golly, that chimney — boy, I really am a chimney. Yes, sir!"

There sure is. Now, I've never mentioned this little phenomenon because it worries people to death and I couldn't give you an accurate rundown on how to use it or what it was. That's the way you kind of double-terminaled things, once upon a time. Mirrors rub things out. Instead of using a felt on the blackboard, all you do is use a mirror on the facsimile and it rubs out. You can mock up mirrors and make mirrors and they'll do this trick. People think they can't make these mirrors anymore; therefore, they've got to have the facsimiles. They — it sounds very incredible but they are — these mirrors sitting around.

And you say, "Well, boy, you're pretty good at this," something like that. Just lead him along.

Now, the one thing that a mirror could never differentiate very well was something black because you didn't want to put the mirror up to it because you didn't know quite where the blackness started and where it ended and how deep it was, or anything else. You couldn't tell about this blackness!

The reason you want two terminals there is so you don — really don't go into agreement with him at all. And that was why we have suddenly sprung two terminals in here, amongst other reasons, but why it suddenly becomes not just mildly a good idea. You sure better had. If you're going to agree with him verbally, mentally, you sure better not have him as a physical object there to agree with, too. Or you'll get in the same shape as a poor psychiatrist I saw one day. Walked into his office and he was imitating everything. Every-thing. Anything that came to his view.

Furthermore, you're continually liable to this: Something is liable to reach out of the blackness and grab something that's yours — no good, no good at all. So this stuff blackness is something you stay away from.

Now, you're going to find that there are patients that as soon as you tell them to be something, they start to operate as it in their muscles. Don't worry about it. Just remember that wherever you're processing people, reduce the number of items which can be broken to a minimum in the environment. That's all.

And if you face blackness and push against blackness, you are a mirror, you see? In essence, you are a mirror. So what's it look like? It looks like if you push against the blackness, the blackness is pushing against you. And if somebody can sell you on the idea — just overbalance it slightly — that the blackness is pushing against you, you will then fight evil. You will fight blackness and fight evil and that will mean a closure of terminals with everything bad. That's all anybody has to do is come along and say, "There's something bad about something or other" and immediately somebody will start fighting it. And then he'll wind up with it.

Now, don't start worrying about the fact that he goes off of the couch and is on the floor, and while he's busy being an automobile he keeps banging his elbows against the floor. Just take note of this and next session have a mattress down there.

Blackness, blackness. Why does your preclear have blackness sitting above his head? Well, one of the things is he's liable to put blackness above his own head. Why? He wants to be a hidden influence, that's what. He wants to be a hidden communication line and he'd just love to operate as he's operating, and go right on and somehow or other survive it, although he knows there's bad liabilities to it. And he's put the blackness above his head to protect himself. Against what?

I have actually seen a preclear practically beat himself to pieces this way. And you say, "That's horrible. He should never have been permitted to have been processed without some kind of a mattress or something of the sort. Look it. He fell off the couch and he did this and that, and he got a big bruise on his forehead." Ah, he's lots better. So what!

Against a mock-up that has been used on him: God. "Now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take . . ." and a kid starts screaming quietly inside him-self and he says, "My God, I thought things were bad enough in this universe, but now, by golly, something's going to reach down out of the night sky and pick my body up and cart it off and I'll never get it back, and I like this body." That's the way the kid interprets that sort of a nonsense.

It's better to process him, in other words, than to worry about the rest of him. That is another reason why you shouldn't process late at night. You tell this fellow, "All right, now be a train." This guy has looked perfectly sane to you up to this moment and he says . . . And there he goes. You're out! Lease broken because they heard him three blocks away.

And the Devil — the Devil is down below. All religions, primitives and so forth — there is Yamalek a queen of the underearth, and so forth. This devil has this approximation just everywhere! Oh, you've got this devil as a standard idea all over the place, and he always lives under the ground. And he's liable to reach up out of the ground and grab you and drag you down into the ground so you'd better put a lot of blackness under you, and then he won't find you. So you see, blackness is desirable; it hides one.

Now what happens to sonic? Well, you have him be a voice. It's easy. And any time it comes to your mind, flip in something hidden for him to be. That is, don't say, "Be something hiding in the coal cellar," or something like this. Don't worry too much about getting that broad about it. But slip in something like "Be a sound wave. Be a light ray." See? "Be night over London."

From what? From hidden and mysterious influences. What kind? The kind you can't be sure whether they are there or not. So to control people, to get them to computing, to nail them down, to pin them in one place and so forth, you just give them some kind of a fancy stock story about "There may be a hidden influence there; there may be not a hidden influence there."

Oh, he liked that. "Gee, yeah. That's good." See?

It's a very strange thing that the Western civilization at this particular time is fixed upon a particular god who is kept in a trunk. But it's a funny thing but they just don't even have a good identification for this particular being.

Now, differentiate. Don't get a consecutive story going. Differentiate very well.

It's fabulous, fabulous. You go from religion to religion and everybody says, "This is a Christian religion." And every one of them tells you something different about this hidden influence.

Beingness is perception and so he's going to be able to perceive better.

"Is it a good influence or a bad influence?" Well, people will argue about this, and argue and argue and argue. The whole civilization — throughout Europe and America — went mad over this, and have been crazy on the subject for a long time. They're not near as mad as they used to be.

Your role as an auditor, then, is not being expressed near so much in terms of how adroitly you can handle 865 new techniques which I just invented which you were beginning to wonder if that wasn't your role as an auditor. Your skill really doesn't have to lie in that direction. Your skill lies in handling people. What is the adroitness? What level of case can you reach? That's how good you are. And what shape are you in? That's how good you are.

But two thousand years ago, twenty-five hundred years ago, you wouldn't have heard much of this sort of thing. You'd have heard much more about — arguments about whether or not — whether or not the bird flying overhead was carrying a message from some spirit.

Because of these things you could look around in life, you can under-stand it a lot better. Therefore you can do a lot of things. You don't have to sit down, then, and hold tight to some knowledge. You can relax. You can relax, get yourself into fine shape and you will certainly be able to understand people. If you don't know how to understand people, something of the sort, that's because you don't want to be people. That's all there is to that.

You would have heard a lot about that. But you wouldn't have heard about a mysterious, outright hidden influence.

I'll give you a little rule of the thumb about personal relations. You — sometimes you wonder about personal relations. You wonder, "Well, how in the name of common sense can I tell anything about personal relations?" And "I don't understand men" or "I don't understand women" or "There's some-thing going on." Preclears will be saying this to you. There's a piece of advice to give them on that that actually permits them to differentiate up to the time they get up to a level. They can differentiate amongst people and be perfectly happy about it if they can do this. They take three categories. There are good people, which is to say only people that are friendly to them, you know, interested in them — they're interested in. That's — we'll call good people, merely meaning they're good for the preclear.

In other words, I want to impress upon you that this is a new idea. It is a new idea! It is not an old idea, and it is not held in common with the greater part of the peoples of the earth — that God is something that exists every-where and is above your head. That's a new idea. And that the Devil — the Devil is always underfoot and is about to grab you. That is not an old time-worn idea. But primitive peoples will cook this other one up.

And then there are the people who have a pitch, a colloquialism meaning they want to gain something by the association. You can count on the fact those people are going to use hidden influences and control mechanisms. They got a pitch, they're always figuring, so forth. And they start — and how can you identify them? They will almost instinctively start to work this "sympathize" angle. They're always the guy with the pitch. Sympathize: "You poor fellow, you work too hard." Oh, there's a thousand categories. "I am a good friend of yours." But what is the main characteristic of this fellow with the pitch or this woman with the pitch? "Others don't appreciate you but I do." That is the main — the main approach. That always is the approach. And sympathize about your hard lot. That's the guy with the pitch.

Well, what do these ideas come from? Why do we have, though, this kind of an idea of influencing spirits above and below and on every side — these hidden influences? And what's this got to do with you wanting an identity? Well, if you have an identity, then such a god could get you, couldn't he, if you have an identity. So therefore you don't want an identity but you have one, and you have a desire to be identified.

And the third kind is guys who aren't interested and women who aren't interested. They're not interested. All right, if they're not interested in their job, they're going to leave something undone. You get uninterested around MEST sometime or you get around somebody who's not interested in you some-time and, boy, you'll wind up in more wrecked cars and under more pieces of broken glass, and so on. They're just not interested. That is the total test. They're not very interested. That means they might be very interested in other people, they might be very interested in other things, but to you they're just not interested. They don't interest you; you don't interest them.

Is it something anybody did to you? No, it's a mistake I'm afraid we all made, a very simple error. What this — you see, a person could be extremely religious and not buy this particular deity. It's a very funny thing, but you don't have to buy this deity at all. He's a highly specialized deity. As a matter of fact, oh, I'd say something on the order of three-quarters of the people on earth don't happen to believe in this kind of a god today, so it's specialized.

So they fall apart into these three categories. There's only one of those categories that's even vaguely workable, and that's the people who are good for the preclear. That is a friendly basis, no pitch. They're interested in what happens to the preclear.

But, all deities and all devils and all spirits have this in common: They're liable to come in from somewhere and grab you. And then what — then what we're arguing about is — when we argue about deities and devils and so forth, we're really talking in terms of somebody trying to make a physical actuality out of something which would never present a physical appearance. Isn't that odd?

If he insists on associating — people who are not interested, you as an auditor can fall flat on your face simply by dramatizing this one: trying to interest people in life. And there's hardly a person here who hasn't fallen on his face trying to keep people going and get people interested in the future who aren't interested. And it'll break your heart. In the absence of good, solid, reliable processing you don't do anything for them. You can process them and do something for them, but don't try to do anything else for them because they're sick. They've failed so heavily with MEST that they're no longer interested. And I don't care what kind of a manifestation they're putting on — they like to be insouciant or something of the sort about it all and offhanded about the . . . They're licked. In processing you can do something for them.

In other words, you do not have to call yourself "irreligious" simply because you don't happen to buy a materialistic god or devil. You'd say, "Well, I don't believe God or the Devil is made out of matter." That makes you more religious than the guys down the street because they claim that materialism is bad, and yet they have a materialistic God. Why? Well, he can grab you. He'd have to have something with which to grab you.

Well, many an auditor goes by the boards in getting a preclear who isn't interested and trying to interest him in Scientology. Many an auditor, he just winds up in the soup. They're a problem in accessibility and therefore they're a case. All right, they're a case.

This is interesting; you can go around and around on this one. I'm only stressing this at this time; I'm just threading this in sideways. You're much closer to a religion than man has ever been before.

So, I just make those finishing remarks on the basis of interpersonal relationships. You don't have to beat the drum very hard. But you should concentrate upon your personal presence. And your personal presence depends upon your ability to be anything. And that's all personal presence is. You concentrate on that level, get your own case up the line. You know this process and you know why it works. You can go back and at your leisure understand and know a great many things here about human behavior, stimulus-response mechanisms — all this various things. What is the associative restimulator in the environment? All this material is interesting, quite interesting. But the vital material of you as an auditor is to know and put into practice conscientiously this simple process of Mock-up Beingness, be able to carry it through, stay interested in it and in you as an individual. You as an individual are very — then very important to the process. Always the individual has been important to the process because he establishes better levels of accessibility. This is very easy.

All right, let's take this hidden influence. All right, it can most easily hide in blackness, can't it? So you've come along, time after time, you see this blackness and you don't want to get your mock-ups close to it, because it's — you're liable to get your mock-ups stolen. You don't want to put anchor points into it because they're liable to disappear.

You can use this now in groups. And as a group of auditors you can be processed by this a certain percentage of the time. You can process each other on this and you will find out your cases will come right straight up the line and you will walk right on out.

By the way, don't think it's peculiar that a fellow has blackness around him. You know, you can have black anchor points, blue anchor points, yellow anchor points, clear anchor points, orange anchor points — any kind you want. And black anchor points is routine.

Now what about SOP 5? Just as good as it ever was. And you had better know SOP 5 simply because it tells you the various things the thetan can be expected to do in the vicinity to his body and himself.

But you'd want a black anchor point to sort of shoot into that cloud of blackness and then bring it back and find out if there was anything in there. Let's penetrate that cloud of blackness and find out, because otherwise we couldn't perceive in there.

But here's double terminals — were standing in your road. And the old man double terminal: Thetan steps out of his body, he snaps back in or he can't get out of his body at all. That's because the second he's out of his body, he's a double terminal. He might be able to get out of his body if you suddenly say, "Be on the moon" or "Be — be in South Africa." But if he steps out any-where in the vicinity to that body he's a double terminal.

What are you doing when you do that? You're saying, "Who are you?" "Who are you?" And of course, you always fail to find out because he isn't anybody. Because 99 percent of the blackness has nothing in it, so therefore you continually fail with this question "Who are you?"

So some very rough cases if you suddenly say, "Be in South Africa," they'll be in South Africa, suddenly, out of their body. That's far enough away so they don't get a double terminal.

And then you say, "Well go ahead and be something. What is this blackness?"

But any difficulty you have with Theta Clearing is then the difficulty of the double terminal. It is not solved by double terminals particularly. It is solved by the ability to be many things. If the person keeps on having trouble with the double terminal, keep mocking himself up in front of himself. You can put that down. That's a good one for you to know. That's — you can go into that a long time. You keep mocking the fellow up in front of himself, mocking his body up in front of him, mocking up his body in front of him. And eventually the body will be sitting in front of him, he'll be sitting behind it. It's a long process, however. You just keep mocking up his body with its back to him, mocking up his body with its back to him, mocking up the body with its back to him. Just keep putting it there and if he does that long enough and he can stand the somatics — he'd get lots of them, he'd get lots of them, believe me — why, he'll eventually get it to a point where he can hold the body there and himself here. How simple? Nothing to that!

People talk about coming into the MEST universe. Their first warning about the MEST universe is the fact that a whole lot of blackness came over them and they were quite upset about it, and so they were scared. "Who are you?"

So, Scientology got very simple. What I'm giving you in these lectures, complemented by your understanding of self-determinism and whatever other things you had in those early Axioms, this other material — what I've given you in these lectures should be known to you and practiced by you. I can guarantee that we can't get much simpler than this in the standpoint of technique.

Now, if you asked this question and failed to find it out long enough, you'd finally wind up starting — asking yourself, "Who are you?" "Who are you?" "Who are you?" You'd go nuts, in other words, and you'd want an identity.

However, there are some further data which, simple as it is, integrates with the earlier data which is necessary for you to have, really, before you can go into what we call Standard Operating Procedure.

You'd get an identity to demonstrate to the blackness that it should have an identity — there is only a kind of a reason there. But you're acting as a mirror. You're acting as a mirror. So the questions you ask of the blackness, if you fail, you will ask of you. And you'll say, "Who are you? What are you trying to be? What are you going to be?" Anything like that. And from that genus you get into the error of wanting desperately an identity, and wanting to be something! Because you want that blackness to be something, not to be that black nothing!

Now in — you know there's been Standard Operating Procedure 1, Standard Operating Procedure 2 and so forth for Theta Clearing. Well, the reason why we had Issue 1, Issue 2 and Issue 5 and so forth is because we knew we were progressing up to a point where we could get a highly stable Standard Operating Procedure. And so it's true. And we — so we can call this, now, Standard Operating Procedure. And to differentiate between it and Standard Operating Procedure Issue 1, 5, so forth, you just say Issue 1, 5 for the others and this is Standard Operating Procedure, which puts it over the top of these other procedures.

And that anxiety, you find a little child, he's going out "Who's in that night outside?" Show him the dark and he takes a look at that darkness and he says, "Hm, no! No, there's things in it."

Now, first and foremost in all this, you have, of course, the eradication of postulates — contrasurvival postulates from the mind of the person. Now, you understand at this juncture that we're not interested in the human mind. Funny, isn't it? We're not interested, really, in the human mind. The human mind composes and resolves problems for the survival of the individual. We stopped being interested in the human mind some time ago. We are interested in that mechanism, that beingness, which is capable of being anything and knowing it instantaneously. We're interested in that capability. We're not interested in thinking about it. The second we're no longer interested in thinking about it, we're not interested in this thing called the human mind, which is at best a rather good electronic computer. And the second we cease to be interested in it, at that moment we have recognized that we are not studying something which has to survive but something which knows it will just go on surviving from here on out. Now that was your border.

And if you observe a child in a primitive culture, if he has to walk abroad at night, "Who's there?" he will say around the corner of the roads and so forth. "Who's there?" And he might eventually wind up in this pure fright and he'll say, "Well, I'm here anyway." Well, then he'll start asking himself "Well, wait a minute, who are you?" Why is he asking himself that? It's merely because he asked out there. He doesn't care who he is.

A preclear or an auditor had to be able, then, to come up to a very thorough understanding of that factor. He had to be able to know, without any slightest doubts, that it was a matter of mort — immortality. He had to know, in other words, what he was composed of and what beingness he had and how he went on from there.

It's to his advantage not to have any identity. Identity is a liability.

When we had a technique that could tell him this, and tell him this not from the standpoint of education but by processing, we were there. And we're there.

You won't understand this, your preclear won't understand this completely until he double-terminals blackness — matches two black terminals, two black patches, each one asking the other one "Who are you?" And that is a technique right there; that is one of the things which you must do in this process is double-terminal two patches of blackness, each asking the other, "Who are you?"

Now, I'd like to call to your attention the mechanism which is known as thought. It's a very funny thing, you'd think it would take a couple of encyclopedias to run this down. It's probably going to take me years and years to write up anything on the subject and cover the subject adequately — behavior and thought. It's a big field. It's a big, complicated field. Skip it! The mind is something that poses and resolves problems. It observes data and poses and resolves problems relating to survival. That's all. It'd take years to really boil that down, and I'm going to do that. I'm going to take a little time off and go down and sit on a rock or something of the sort, and write all that up.

And the fellow will say, all of a sudden, "You know, I've been trying — trying to get an identity all these years, and I don't want any identity. I don't know what this is that just came over me, but I really don't want an identity!" Well, now, he doesn't have to understand this mechanism. That's what will happen to him. All right.

But that's not very germane to an auditor. An auditor isn't even re — interested in this. Isn't that fascinating? He ceased to get interested in this at the moment when he had a technique which would take any postulate, computation or circuit out of the mind in a few seconds or a few minutes, selectively and at will, without restimulating the preclear. The second that he had this technique, then he could simply look at somebody and say, "This person has the postulate — he's running on the postulate, 'I've got — I've got to be helped' " or something of this sort. I mean, he could add this up, you know, just look at a preclear and say, "I wonder why this fellow is acting the way he is. Well, he's acting the way he is . . . He keeps telling me — he keeps saying all the time he's talking to me — he keeps saying, 'I want to be helped. Now, you've got to help me. And nobody ever has helped me. And somebody's got to help me. And you've got to help me." And we've listened to this about eighteen times in his conversation, and what do we do about this?

Then what's Standard Operating Procedure here? It concerns itself with primarily clearing up the thetan rather than stepping him out of a body. You are clearing him up and clearing up his universe. And that sounds very funny "clearing up his universe," but his universe is sitting right there — he's in it. He's sitting right there, and it happens to be in confluence with the MEST universe. And you're trying to square him around so he's got a recognition of his beingness.

Well, we double-terminal — we match-terminal the postulate. That's a killer. That technique, that's just a killer.

Of his identity? No, you want a high level of "I am" and a very low level of "I am Joe." You see?

We can shoot a circuit, then, out of the mind with the — a much greater ease than shooting fish, because you have to have a gun to shoot fish. And all you need is some space out in front of the preclear, and he's saying, "I think I need help. I just know I need help."

And you want all that blackness out of there and you want all those anchor points under control.

And you say, "Well, how about you putting the thought over here to the right in front of you — putting the thought 'I need help,' and then facing it over here from the left, we put the thought again, 'I need help.' We put the thought 'I need help,' facing the thought 'I need help.' "

Well now, the best ways to do this, you can get him out of a body, and so on. So therefore, the first step in this Standard Operating Procedure would be identical with the first step you have been using right straight along.

How far apart? You don't care how far apart he puts them. Eight miles, eight feet or eight inches. You just tell him put those two things facing each other, and what do you know, we have reality. Reality is agreement. We have two terminals. Then we have an idea agreeing with an idea, don't we? We have two terminals facing each other, so eventually and finally, my God, the fellow's gotten reality and agreement on the subject of needing help.

You just tell the thetan to be a couple feet back of his head, and operate him from there.

Only he doesn't figure this out. He doesn't even vaguely figure this out. He just sets up these two thoughts — one thought facing the other thought — and these two thoughts face each other and they just sit there. Well, they'll sit there for two seconds or they'll sit there for two minutes or they'll sit there for twenty minutes. He just keeps putting them up there as long as he cares to put them up there. And you just go on making him put those thoughts up there. Of course, he'll — at first he'll get the idea he's got them up there, then he'll get one of them thinking this, then he won't be able to get that one thinking this but he'll get the other one thinking this, then he'll get the one thinking it again and then he'll have neither of them thinking it and then he'll have one thinking it. All you do is you say, "Just keep putting them up there."

Now, do you run him with Double Terminals? Yep. You have him double-terminal things.

Now what happens in the misbehavior of any terminal pair? If you get a pair of terminals that misbehaves? They want to go around in a circle, some-thing like that or they want to jump up and down, they want to do this. They want to do that. What do you do with these terminals? Your preclear abandons them and puts two new terminals there. Every time a terminal misbehaves, abandon it and put two new there. Simple, isn't it?

Do you operate him in locating himself throughout the universe in various dangerous places, and mocking things up to be them? Yes, yes.

Now, where the fellow was unable to get any kind of a mock-up or any-thing of this sort, he had to be able to handle things in terms of concepts, didn't he? You've heard — there's a lot of V's, VI's around. They can get a concept but they can't get a mock-up. Is that right? Well, they can put concepts up on the wall and solve their case. And the next thing you know, they're getting mock-ups like mad. Right away, I mean very soon.

Now, your second step that you would do would have to do with "mock-up of beingness." Mock himself up as this and that — double-terminaled. And you put him on an E-Meter, you'll find out what he's afraid to be. Then you have him make a double terminal of it out here until he's perfectly willing to be it. Now, you get that as a technique?

So what kind of mock-ups would you use? What kind of postulates would you try to run out as an individual? What kind of postulates?

Give him a run on the E-Meter and say, on the E-Meter — and he says well, one thing he's awful afraid of is, boy, is he scared of being Pop! "Ohhh! no, I don't want to be my father!" Well, if he doesn't want to be his father, he isn't going to step out of a body. The reason he isn't going to step out of a body is because he doesn't want to be something. The second he doesn't want to be something, you're going to get a double terminal setup that collapses terminals.

Well, I mentioned one the other day. Unfortunately, it's not the most workable postulate in the world. But you could put up, for instance, "Postulates must endure. They must have duration." Now, you could put that up facing that thought.

If a person doesn't want to be something, he's going to become it. So therefore it's necessary for you to double-terminal Pop out here; double-terminal Father that he is trying to be so different about.

Is there any picture there with these? No, there's no picture. No picture at all.

He doesn't want to be Father, so you want to get the people in this lifetime — for Step II — the people in this lifetime he doesn't want to be and just double-terminal them. He doesn't want to be Sister, he doesn't want to be Papa, he'd kind of like to be Mama. Well then, if he'd kind of like to be Mama, you going to double-terminal Mama? Skip it. He wants to be Mama, doesn't he? Therefore, Mama isn't particularly aberrative.

So this would be running postulates. And you'd better run them this way, because they just evaporate. The whole chain of them evaporates. As long as the person's had these, they just evaporate. That's all. Of course, he'll get to worrying about it and he'll find out they won't stay up on the wall and he — or they won't stay up on the other side of the wall or wherever he's got them and they keep disappearing and he keeps putting them back and he — they say it to him but they don't say it to them.

He should want to be Papa, he should want to be everybody! He should be completely relaxed about it.

Now, do they say it in words? No, you're not interested in words. He hap-pens to be this lifetime and he is speaking this lifetime, let us say, English. If he's speaking English in this lifetime, believe me, he hasn't spoken English forever.

Now, that would be Step II: is clean up the personnel that he doesn't want to be.

So what do you do? You get the concept and the feeling together so as to combine the thought there as it would have been felt or known as a thought rather than as a language.

And by the way, Step II, I point out, is the step you would enter automatically. You see, it's a very light step; this is not an important step. It's thetechnique you would use in an office on an individual who has some worries.He comes in and he says, "I'm worried." Well, if you want to gunshot out all those worries get him to double-terminal his wife facing his wife and just hold her there. He's a man; he's trying not to be a woman. The obvious part of his trouble is that. There's something he doesn't want to communicate with.

Now, for instance, we could put the words — you see, don't get this down into repeater technique. You can run the whole first book out of a guy. I mean, you can run — take everything in the first book and shoot it out with this Matched Terminals Postulates.

You can spot it on the E-Meter what he's particularly upset about communicating with. It will usually be an opposite-sex member, because he can't be them, therefore he has to stop their motion, and he's failed to stop their motion so he therefore doesn't want to be them. So if he doesn't want to be them, then he's going to have trouble with them. He doesn't want to communicate with them, but he has to communicate with them and this upsets him. So just double-terminal somebody like this. All right.

All right. We get here then "It's very bad" — by the way, that's a good one to run: "It's very bad" or "I must be agreed with" or "Nobody approves of me" or something like that. Anything like that. And you could say that in words. But let's take "It's very bad." Now, what — how would you say "It's very bad" without using words? Well, you — there are a lot of ways. You could say, 'Ah-ah-ah-ah." Or you could say, "Neeooum-um-um-um-um." Or "Uuhh!" See? I mean, there's lots of ways you can have that thought "It's very bad" facing the thought "It's very bad." See how you would do that?

Let's go into Step III of this. And Step III is an important step and is consecutive with Step I. If he didn't step out on Step I, do Step III. And Step III is simply this: Make him double-terminal postulates; make him double-terminal the feeling of doubt against the feeling of doubt. Make him have — double-terminal the feeling of "I don't know" against the feeling of "I don't know." Get a feeling of "I've got to keep my pictures" against "I've got to keep my pictures." I've said this, you know, as being very aberrative — pictures.

Now badness is blackness. And so therefore, if you got two black patches — one black patch facing the other black patch — you'd learn an awful lot of interesting things. Then the preclear would say, "Well, I don't know if those are my black patches."

And they've got to — various things. And if you just look at him, you'll know that's — he's worried about something. You just ask him what he worries about.

"Well, to heck with the ones you've got there, then. Put up a couple more black patches."

"Well, I worry 'cause I don't know, I think all the time. I worry all the time. I think all the time. I worry all the time."

"Well, I don't know if those are mine, either."

Well, you could even go so far as to just get himself facing himself worrying all the time. But just get the idea "worrying all the time" versus the idea of "worrying all the time." To a large degree, he'll stop worrying.

"Well, put up a couple of new ones."

But what's at the bottom of that pile of worry? Is: "Is there a hidden influence or isn't there a hidden influence?" Now, you just face that thought facing that thought. Well, what could you do? You could say, "Is there a devil or isn't there a devil?" And he'd say, "Well, I don't worry about God and the Devil anymore. I used to do that when I was a little kid. But I remember I used to have nightmares about it, but I haven't worried about it for years. Ha-ha." Oh yeah?

And finally he'll say, "Yeah; those are mine."

Well, if this fellow can't get out of his body, he's got a big, black, weighty patch right on the top of his head — pow! He put it there. He figured it out when he was a little kid. "Let's see, God's going to get me and grab my body. The best thing for me to do is to put a big, black patch over the top of my head and make myself invisible from above. I'll try anyway." It's silly — silly.

Of course, well, how can you tell a black patch from another black patch?

So you would terminal, "Is there a God or isn't there a God?" "Is there a devil or isn't there a devil?" Just double-terminal this idea — this question.

Well, the point is, you can't. So you just put them up there until it's dead certain that they must be yours. Nothing else would have been putting up blackness up there except you.

So that if you're dealing with computation, what you want to do is double-terminal questions. You see that? The questions he's demanding all the time.

Well, all right. Now, you could code it like this: You could put up the symbol zero there with a black patch facing the symbol zero with a black patch. And you would have what? You would have "It's bad to be nothing." You see?

So that tells you immediately that you take the bottom of the Chart of Attitudes on your Double Terminal questioning. You say, "Who am I?" versus "Who am I?" Or you'd get a patch of blackness saying to a patch of blackness, "Who am I?" versus "Who am I?" Just take the Double Terminal postulate idea on the Chart of Attitudes right there at the bottom. Bottom of the chart, bottom of the columns — those are very easy to run.

Now, you can work this out in any one of a thousand ways. It isn't even particularly germane how you work it out. But I'm pointing out to you that they are not words that you're putting up there. But you can put up just the phrases. But you could put "ah-ah-ah" facing "ah-ah-ah." And sure enough, the first thing you know, why, you say, "You know, my mother wasn't a bad person" — the fellow would be telling you.

Or any kind of a question you want or think of or anything this fellow tells you — worried about — you tell him, "Just put it up on the wall and make it face that."

Now, that's shooting out postulates because postulates are essentially made up of these two things: concept and a feeling. Of course, a postulate is even clearer or higher than a concept or a feeling, but you can get them at that level and they are only aberrative at that level when they get into concepts and feelings. So you can — you can put a concept and a feeling together, facing a concept and a feeling together. Is there — is these things visible? Do you have a picture? No, you don't have a picture and these things are not visible to the pre-clear. He can do this out of the blackest darkness you have ever heard of. He can just blow. Now, you see? So this is what's called matching postulates.

Now, you're going to take care of what we've been calling V Level Cases — we're not calling V Level Cases anymore. We don't care about classification of cases anymore, beyond this classification: You tell somebody to step out of his head; you work him there. If you tell somebody to step out of his head and he doesn't work there, you just work him where he is and then tell him to step out of his head. We really don't even need a step to tell you that he has to step out of his head.

What is the genus of thought? You know — we haven't much time to finish all this off, but we can say, "Well now, let's see, we're going to take the next eighty thousand years and talk about nothing but thought." Well, let's take the next eighty seconds and describe it completely and adequately.

All right, your next step on the line after you've handled some postulates and so forth like that, you'll find out this — you'll find out that you bet-ter do, then, a mock-up of people grabbing his anchor points and so forth. And the technique is a very simple one. You just get people picking him up and dragging him away — double-terminaled, in the form of mock-ups. And then people pushing him back to himself again, in the form of the mock-ups.

Thought derives in this fashion. We have the idea that there is such a thing called a hidden influence. One dis — understands there's a hidden influence the first moment he discovers there is other-determinism. Other-determinism must then be a hidden influence. He never completely understands that there's anything around except his own — his own anchor points. So every-body else is his anchor point. Isn't that true? And all houses in this world and all planets and everything under the sun and under the stars and under the galaxies and under the blackness and under the roof in general would be just anchor points of his. They're nobody else's. But all of a sudden he finds out they move unpredictably. The second they move unpredictably he concludes there must be a hidden influence.

Just get them dragging in and pushing in — dragging out and pushing in his anchor points. And he has his anchor points. He's pushing in and dragging out anchor points. And then get him to work anchor points. And you'd call this step, the full step, the "work anchor points step" — you see, work anchor points.

Now, worse than that, he has the idea that an anchor point has moved but he doesn't know whether or not it has moved. So right away he's on an indecision. Maybe there's a hidden influence there and maybe there isn't.

And now, number two of that, of course, is very trivial. You don't care anything about mocking up members of the family — you can omit it. But it's a nice one to have around, because it's a good workable technique and people really react on it rather rapidly. And you're not interested in that technique, then, so much — number two.

You want to shoot the human mind to pieces and the mind of the pre-clear so the preclear becomes very happy and very cheerful, all you have to do is find out the first time that he ran into one of these big maybes. One of these real big maybes. And you will find the genus of his own computation.

But boy, are you interested in this fourth one I just gave you. Boy, you're really interested in that. And your — could be interested in it to this degree: When your preclear shows up, you start running this in all of its varied forms. Anything you can think of being taken away from him on a double terminal basis — anything you can think of.

And this is what is known as computation. Shooting the computations out of a case is very interesting. Shooting the postulates out of a case is a little bit different than shooting the computations. I point that out to you. A computation and computing, in general, is aberrative and you will find the preclears who are worst off do the most of it. All right, let's then find — they, by the way, they get to a point where they do figure-figure-figure-figure-figure and they're not figuring on anything. They're just disassociating utterly on their figuring, only they know they've got to figure. And they just get awfully disturbed on it.

And what do you call this whole step, this fourth step now? It's the resolution of loss, fear of. And that, of course, is the resolution of ridicule and betrayal. Loss, ridicule, betrayal — they're all done there in Step IV. And how do you do this? You just have people on a double terminal basis or things on a double terminal basis, any variety of things you could think of.

What is this? This is the manifestation of trying to find the hidden influence which will resolve the maybe. "Was it my anchor point or wasn't it my anchor point?" or "What did happen to it?" or "Did anything happen to it?" or "Is it still there?" Now, that's the — all those various things. In other words, we're talking now about something you heard about in Technique 80, which is, simply the overt act — motivator mechanism.

You see, I don't have to lay down a pattern for this because you could just take a dictionary and start running through a dictionary. You could take anything that gives you a list. And they pick up and take away from him an anchor point and hold it out there. Or they take it out there and they laugh over it or they wreck it or they do anything of the sort on a double terminal basis, you see?

Of course a person does overt acts and gets them back because he thinks he's done them to his own anchor points. He's been fighting the battle of his own anchor points ever since he was around. He has not been fighting an interpersonal relation battle, because he has never admitted to himself there was any other determinism than his own.

Any kind of a thing, whereby here's your preclear, and they pick up his body or his wallet or his cap or his automobile or his wife or his cow, or any-thing you want to think of in terms of — anything a person could possess, and they carry it away.

Why? Well, he could be anything, couldn't he? So therefore, anything he could see, he could be. And anything he saw, he was. By definition, anything he saw, he was. Because that was space. He could be space because space was beingness, and if he really got some space out there and he was that space .. . So naturally everything he saw was his own anchor point, isn't it? Now, that's very — as a matter of fact, that's the way he figured because that's the way he's built.

And you know what you want to do as the roughest part of that step — and hold your hat on this step, and don't hit this step into a preclear who is bad off — is remember that the sixth dynamic is the main target. Take planets away from him and give planets to him. Planets are surrounded by blackness and planets are bright. They are apparently faces, and he has faces so tied in with planets that his interpersonal relationship is horrible.

All right. He gets to something: "Was it mine? Wasn't it mine? Is there a hidden influence? Isn't there a hidden influence?" So he comes along one fine day and he finds out that — as he walks in the house his mother suddenly slams a drawer. And he says, "I wonder which one of my anchor points she put in that drawer. I wonder what she put in that drawer. Did she put anything in the drawer?" We don't get a chance to look for about twenty minutes but — and by that time Mama's been in that room all the time and one goes in and he takes a look in the drawer, finds out what happened in the drawer. No. No, there's nothing in the drawer. "Well, what did she do with it? Did she put anything in the drawer? Didn't she put anything in the drawer? I don't know whether she put anything in the drawer or not. But certainly — she certainly acted rather secretive. I wonder what she was up to." He doesn't know.

For instance, he sat here and looked at the moon just for ages. There was the moon up there, see? And it's got hidden influences every — all over on Earth here primitive people such as the US Department of Agriculture believe in the hidden influences of the moon. You have the entire sexual cycle running on the hidden influence of the moon.

And you — therefore you can sum up any hidden influence or any computation simply under that basis: It is founded on "I don't know." A person is computing in order to find out, therefore the basic on any one of those things is "I don't know."

You know what you do with the moon? You just have people take the moon away from him, and people giving him the moon, and people taking the moon away and giving people the moon — double-terminal, you understand, either side — two people always, two moons always, in and out.

I don't know what? Well, one of the things that theta does is tie — tend to locate energy, matter, in time and space; tries to do that all the time, wants to do that. Certainty, it thinks, depends on his ability to do that and as a consequence, it — also, by the way, its highest function is the creation of energy, matter, in space, and creation of the space and location in that. Therefore, when something is not located, the — a thetan becomes very upset. It's not located, and when you — when he's got to locate it, but he doesn't even know whether it was there to be located or not, believe me, it — he doesn't know. So the first thing on the line is the hidden influence. Well, why — you can find out, as an auditor, "All right, let's see, when's the first of these hidden influences that showed up in your life?" You don't have to call them a hidden influence — "When's the first time something happened in your life you found out you didn't know?"

Now, the first thing you know, he'd say, "You know, my — I — all of my sexual experiences . . . I just recall a whole lot of things. And you know, I think we've kind of solved this whole case because, you know, I can see the whole Freudian imputation and comfloration on the left-hand side of the ruddy rod here. And I've got it all figured out, and I'm just delighted and now that I have solved uh ..."

The fellow says, "Oh, I guess I was about fourteen. No, no, wait a minute, I was about ele — no, I was about sev — no, well, you know — I — I — here's . . . You know, I was in Sunday school one time and they kept telling me about — no, there's an earlier one than that."

And you say, "All right, now. Get the moon and have them drag it out here."

In other words, he's running on the easiest — the easiest hole to fall into. It's the hole of: is there something there or isn't there something there?

"No, no! I've got to tell you about this."

And all those things are riding right in present time. Why are they riding in present time? Because they have never been solved. So nothing has ever been put anyplace, nothing's ever been located. And he didn't know if it was there to be located and he's still trying to solve this. And that is the basic of a circuit. And the circuit continues on and accumulates data and accumulates more data and things keep falling into it. And is this another hidden influence or isn't this a hidden influence? Well, you can ask about any circuit.

But the point is that it just happens that sex was so hidden and misunderstood and not understood, that you get the principal hidden influence of night when sex mostly took place, and it's all locked in together. And is sex important in that regard? No! Not even vaguely.

All right. Supposing it were true. Supposing it were true that your mother put away something. What are you unwilling to be? You see, it just would fall across in those two categories. He's afraid of something about this because he's afraid to be something. He doesn't want to be something. What doesn't he want to be? He doesn't want to be a betrayed person or he doesn't want to be a ridiculed person. A betrayed person is one who is — suddenly has all his anchor points smashed in, and a ridiculed person is one who has all of his anchor points stretched out and held.

What is important? The moon has gravity; it causes tides. A person actually can sense a change in his own body of gravitic influence. Anything that's got as strong a pull on Earth as to hoist twenty-eight feet of tide up in the Bay of Fundy — the — picks up the whole bosom of the ocean, lifts it into the air feet every time it goes by. You think your preclear sitting there isn't going to notice this? He's just been noticing it for a long time and he doesn't think he notices it anymore.

And if you want to get yourself a beautiful reaction from a preclear, you just have the preclear mock up somebody — and this is a technique — mock up somebody walking in and picking up his body (mock-up) and walking way away into the darkness and holding it there. And boy, will that preclear get upset! You just — if he doesn't the first time, have somebody do it again. Have this same person. Have his mother come in — and, by the way, run this on double terminals — have Mother come in from the right and left and pick up the preclear's body. See, two bodies, two mothers. And they go away more or less in the same direction walking parallel to each other. And take these bodies way out into the dark and hold them there. And the preclear will start to get pretty doggone nervous! He's trying to get this — he's got the idea of these many times in his life when he tried to get something back that he'd lost. Of course it goes dark. Of course it goes dark when one has lost something. In order to see something there has to be something. Isn't that true? There has to be space and there has to be something in the space to observe, which is an anchor point, which makes any object he beholds, whether a large object or a small object, an anchor point. So there has to be something there and all of a sudden there isn't something there so it must be dark there, mustn't it? Then there must not be any space in that area so naturally, you just get the idea of having lost something, get the preclear with the idea, "I've lost it." And everything will go black in front of his face. He'll just pick up all these times when somebody has carted away his anchor points. What did he have to look at? He had to look at anchor points. If somebody took away his anchor points he didn't have anything to look at, so naturally it was black.

And you get planets in general, and the whole system of planets will start to unwind. And he'll start again a new yak. He'll tell you, "My golly, what do you know, I'm sure that I have crashed on a planet sometime or another. And he'll start to tell you all kinds of incidents of this and that.

Furthermore, he actually has a whole mechanism of anchor points. He has billions of them that he generates. Now, Homo sapiens has forgotten these and he pulls these around and still uses them, but he's forgotten them. And your Operating Thetan, the person that you're trying to fix up and so on — what you're trying to create — uses these things almost wholly for his perceptions. He uses these things, he works them to death. And what are they? They're like a whole mass, like a whole cloud around him. He can manufacture them, he can turn them any color he wants to. There are just billions and billions of them and they're all little tiny anchor points or big anchor points. And he can throw these out to any distance and perceive in that space that he's thrown them out to. And after he's thrown them out to a distance he can pull them in and hold them close to him again. In other words, he can arrange these or adjust these in any way, shape or form.

And do you listen to these? No, you don't. Don't double-terminal crashing on a planet; just double-terminal up planets being taken away from him and planets being given back to him again.

If you want a V to be really surprised you just tell him, "All right, now let's put out your anchor points and pull them in again."

Now, hold your hat and don't run that on a case that's about to spin, because he'll really spin in on you. Now, that's the resolution of anchor points under that Step IV. Now, you could even call these techniques rather than steps and get away with it.

"What do you mean?"

Now, there's another one with that same step. "Throw two anchor points up to the ceiling and hold them there." And it's all part of the same step. You find out this person doesn't easily let things be taken away or pulled back or anything of this sort. Well, he's out of present time. You can give him some time on just putting up a couple of anchor points and holding them there. That's all under anchor points — that whole technique.

You say, "Well, there's a little cloud of particles all over you. And just get that idea. And you push them out and you bring them in."

Then what's V? V would be double-terminaling the body and doubleterminaling — guess what? The MEST objects which the body is ordinarily surrounded with because these are much more aberrative than the body.

And he says, "You know, I can do that. That's very peculiar." He says, "You know, I can do that. My God, there's visio around here." And then he isn't very surprised at all, he says, "Yes, I can do that," just as though he could do that all the time.

He is in the body because he is protecting himself from walls, sofas, chairs, vases. I just demonstrated this a little earlier. We got action on doubleterminaling MEST objects, so number II is quite a different step than number V.

You see, he's playing a joke. It's a grim game. He's playing a joke. He's just pretending he's hiding so that somebody won't come along and pick up his mock-ups. He won't pick up those beautiful scenes he's got around. And he's saying, "Look how old and shabby and no-good I am and look how — look how thoroughly entrenched and dug-in I am. And I am so thoroughly entrenched and dug-in that I haven't got any facsimiles for anybody to steal. I've got no pictures. Not me! Mm-mm."

And number V is down there in logic because he's so mixed up in gravity and so mixed up in hidden influences and so mixed up in this other stuff that you've got to double-terminal the living daylights out of an awful lot of MEST objects before this person is even vaguely aware.

And you tell him to put them out and in, he gets a feeling of fear. And you tell him to put these anchor points out and in again and he'll get another little feeling. He'll say, "Well, all right, it's not so bad. But I can't put them down." Of course he can't put them down. His anchor points have been stopped by planets time after time after time. So he puts them down and brings them back up again and what's he got? He says, "Yeah. I can put them down. What do you know, I can put them down."

Your scale of ARC is the scale of how much MEST has entered into the eing. A person behaves like MEST low on the Tone Scale and behaves like a thetan high on the Tone Scale. So there's your Tone Scale. The Tone Scale is the gradient scale of the amount of MEST which has been entered into the beingness of a person.

Of course they go through anything. MEST doesn't stop them. He can see through anything with these anchor points. He can match up any kind of space he wants with these anchor points. What are they? Just a cloud of particles. And he throws these things out and the second he does that he can perceive. That's the only method the thetan has of perceiving. So don't forget that.

MEST, of course, runs backwards. It does. And very low on the Tone Scale you'll find this. You start — tell him to start to put out his anchor points. And he says, "You know, the more anchor points I put out, the harder facsimiles push in against my face." Why is this? Planets, that sort of thing, have so often overcome his own concepts of height, gravity, control and so on, that at last his own anchor points are beginning to work backwards.

Now on your I's who have very good visio when they come out of their body are simply using these anchor points so well and so easily they don't know they're using them. And the people who see less po — less well aren't using them well. And the people who don't see at all aren't using them at all.

When he says, "Out with the anchor points," they come in. When he says, "In with the anchor points," they go out. And he's gotten very upset, so he abandoned the use of anchor points.

Is this then a subject of facsimiles? Is this then a subject of visio? Is this then a subject of sun's rays, particles off the environment that are going to hit your nostrils or something of this sort?

How do you cure this? You just throw them out and bring them in a few times, and he says, "They were running backwards." So what's that mean? He goes up the Tone Scale the second he recovers this control and handling of anchor points.

The problem of perception is the problem of anchor points. The problem of communication, as I've said in these lectures, is the problem of space, is the problem of beingness. And that, of course, is the problem of energy and the problem of objects. It's also, then, the problem of time.

So this level of step — this V Level of step — you could call the resolution of MEST. You've got to resolve MEST. Then it is for a low-level case. You've got to resolve MEST, that's all, or you're not going to get anyplace with this case.

Now, he has a little anxiety. He's afraid he's going to throw himself out of time. If he throws himself out of time, in other words, he gets too well connected someplace else, he's afraid he's going to lose contact with the MEST universe. So your V is going to have a hard time. He's going to hold on to that body like mad. He's going to hold on to his body hard because he thinks that's the only thing that's keeping him into this universe. He's afraid he'll fly off again. And he still has his home universe. His home universe is his collection of made facsimiles and anchor points. And he's still packing it up; he's still hiding it; he's still got it in his pocket. He isn't going to let you see it and he's gotten to the point where he's hidden it so long that he doesn't want to see it anymore. Unfortunately, it was Fac One that turned this off. That's why Fac One was so hard stressed way back there. Fac One.

This case tells you he can get computations, he can get ideas. Don't — don't bother to run those very much. Try and double-terminal up some MEST for him. Get him — see if he can't get — see if he can't get a chair facing a chair, a black spot facing a black spot. Spot control is right there on that level — only you want two spots, not one.

How do you get rid of a Fac One? Well, double-terminal a camera grinding at itself. Why don't you double-terminal the people grinding at themselves? Well, that's because they're not the sixth dynamic. What you're interested in is the camera and the sound waves. Sound waves are hidden influences. They're not anchor points, nothing of this sort.

Any one of these techniques will apply, actually, to any case. You've got to resolve MEST before this fellow gets very happy about it. MEST has kept betraying him.

Mock up the thetan facing the thetan, putting out a flow of particles, though, as sound and trying to match up as sound, and all of a sudden his sonic will turn on. The only way he ever hears is by a little stream of anchor points, not by sound waves.

Now, that's — leaves you another whole case level, and this is for the neurotic person. How do you solve a neurotic person? ARC Straightwire, next-tothe-last list of Self Analysis. And he just goes over it and over it and over it.

This universe is a big joke, but this universe was a big mystery. This universe has methods of perceiving and hidden influences in it. If it has hid-den influences in it, then it is — gives you something that has to be under-stood. And if it's something that has to be understood then you're in a bad way, because then you can only — you can think about it. It isn't something, then, you understand. It's something you can be. Can you be parts of this universe? Boy, I'll say you can.

And then you continue on with the list of mock-ups of Self Analysis, that's all. Simplest technique imaginable. In other words, you've got the whole technique in a book.

So then, what is our subject here? Our subject is how we put in and out anchor points. That's the end of it. Is it the subject of how we think? No, it's how we perceive. That's it.

You say, "The person can't get mock-ups; he can't get anything; he can't figure anything; he just wants to think; he just wants to do this" — ARC Straightwire. You get him to remember something real, some time when he was in communication, and so on. So he finally says, "Look, I have lived."

Now philosophers dow — back down through the last few thousand years have been beating their brains out and taking hemlock and everything because they couldn't find out how anybody would perceive. They knew that if a tree fell in the woods then the barn caught fire or something of this sort. You remember that. If a horse said, "Neigh," and there was no horse there to hear him, would "Neigh" have been said? If a tree fell in the woods and there was no rabbit to hear the tree, then the tree didn't fall in the woods. Or was there a sound? No, there couldn't have been a sound if there was no ear to hear it. Now, this is balderdash. I mean, typical philosophic bunk. Wonderful.

And then from there you go on to making him make up mock-ups. Well, you can make him make up mock-ups for quite a little while, but all you want is just stability out of him. You want some kind of stability and then you just start over these other steps.

You'll find this in the books of the philosophers as they go over it and over and over and over. As a matter of fact, Bertrand Russell, who is a very good boy, in his last book is covering this whole theory of perception just exhaustively — and exhaustingly too, if I may say so — without getting any-place. He gets the idea that if you could perceive the universe, then the universe is there.

Where do you enter these other steps? Anyplace. What are you trying to achieve? You're trying to achieve a lot of beingness for this thetan — as a thetan. You want him to get back his own facsimiles; you want him to be able to handle his own anchor points perfectly. That's what you're trying to achieve.

That is an unjustified conclusion. That's not justified. Just because you can perceive something is no reason it's there. You put a mock-up out in front of you, you can perceive it, can't you? Well, is that any reason it's there? No. "But it is there," you say. All right, you said it was there, it's there.

And I could stand here, and it would be very nice if I could just go on and talk about this for a long time and give you a complete blow-by-blow. But you know something? We have entered a level of technique where you can't go wrong. What do you know?

So what's this boil down to then? This boils down to the highest echelon of computation would be postulates. I say it's there, therefore it's there. I say there is space, therefore there is space. I say there is light, therefore there is light. Get it?

Because you start playing around with things being taken away from and brought back to, and so on, this individual, he's going to start telling you, "There's something very strange around here but you know, I'm really not me. I'm not . . ." so on. In other words, he'll start telling you.

And how do you say those things? You say them with words? No sir, say them with anchor points. Say it with anchor points.

On that level of drill, then, of regaining the control of anchor points, you have the essence of all of this. Will he get out of his body afterwards, automatically? Yes, sure. He'll get out and he'll come back in or he'll do anything he wants to with it. But you're rehabilitating an individual. And it isn't a tricky technique; that is to say, it's not going to suddenly trip you up.

Now, you'll find your boy sitting around in the doggonedest collection of bric-a-brac and booby traps and theta traps and so forth. He's afraid some other thetan's going to get him. He's afraid somebody's going to come along and steal his facsimiles. He's still afraid the cops from the early track are trying to pick him up for stealing all the facsimiles he stole on the early track.

When it's done on you, you will understand all of a sudden, that you're coming up to a level of knowing you know. And when you know you know, of course you know, and that's the end of that. So you have Scientology, able at last, to arrive at a level which says, "Scientology, the science of knowing how to know."

And by the way, he's hiding some beauties, just but gorgeous facsimiles.

And what's your preclear — what's your goal with the preclear? Well, you bring him up to a point where he knows how to know, that's all. And he knows he knows. And that's — and so it's very pat, isn't it? It's almost as if I thought it up much earlier and had named it just that for that particular reason, and had all this data all the time and was making all of you poor people labor along with bum data. It's one of those accidents.

Fantastic. If somebody in Hollywood could see these things and film them in Technicolor they would — they would just think, "Boy, we've really hit the top of the aesthetic band," you know?

Anyway, your preclear is brought up to a level of knowing how to know. Then do you have to tell him he's a thetan? Do you have to tell him how to operate? Do you have to tell him he doesn't belong in a body? Do you have to tell him what the soul is? Do you have to tell him what God is, something of the sort? No.

They're stolen. And they think cops are after them. Your preclear who is a criminal, who thinks the police are after him, who gets sick, who throws up at the thought of being arrested and so on, he's worried about — he's worried about the facsimile police. It's just as — it's just as ridiculous as that.

But you're going to find, as you start doing this, there's a lot of things he's afraid of, and so you have to know that if one thinks there is something bad about something — one: He will close terminals with it.

You give him the idea "The police are liable to raid me." Just give him this postulate facing this postulate: "The police are liable to raid me." You know that that V is liable to practically go through the floor? He's liable to get sick at his stomach. After a while he'll say, "You know, I wonder why I'm worrying about this. I'm afraid they'll find out about the facsimiles I've stolen. Nobody cares about a facsimile? What am I worried about the police for?"

And anything he's doing that is bad — boy, nice little rule right here, the operating rule of auditing: Anything he thinks is bad is something he has closed terminals with against his will. Other-determinism, in other words, has entered in.

Well, of course, there's a better reason he's worried about the police. It actually isn't that — quite that light. What they did, really, was to take, in Fac One, and just cave a guy in by making him fight a terminal. They gave him a camera for another anchor point. And of course, every time he tries to use anything like this, he starts fighting it and it'll move in on him. And it's — they gave him all sorts of odd ideas and they — he got the idea then he wasn't quite sane. That's very interesting. You run that double terminal: "I'm not quite sane" facing "I'm not quite sane." And rrrrrrr, that's laid in with Fac One.

You're not even now trying to restore the self-determinism of the thetan. You're trying to put back into its operating condition a human soul.

Now we're not interested in whether this stuff is credible or incredible. We're not interested in anything serving it beyond this point. Once you start to use these anchor points and process with these anchor points you are on safe, solid ground, because as far as the anatomy of a thetan is concerned, that's it. We're not even interested in what the anatomy of this universe is. But we are interested in the anatomy of a thetan. The anatomy of the thetan consists of a viewpoint with a whole bunch of anchor points. And you handle those with anchor points. You tell him put his anchor points out and in. He'll say, "I got this black all over my face."

Now, let's take a look, and it's . . . The soul, of course, knows how to know. There's no good in having a soul that doesn't know anything about knowing. You don't even think you're it, and it's not there and all this maybe, and a lot of other things wind up.

Well, you say, "Put it out and in. Out and in. Out and in."

Now, the beautiful rule here is that anything he's afraid of is something with which he has closed terminals. Anything he is doing that he thinks is wrong or that you think is wrong and so on, is being done because he thinks it's wrong too. Anything you or he thinks is wrong, is wrong. And what's wrong about it is because you or he think it's wrong. In other words, what's wrong with wrongness is wrongness. Isn't that simple? All right.

He's liable to tell you a lie. He's liable to say, "I've got something or other here and it's horrible and it's very bad."

So how do you get away with this? Double Terminal. It's a double terminal. He thinks black is bad, so he closes with blackness. Why does he close with blackness? Because he can't control his anchor points, not because he has to have a facsimile run out! His anchor points are going backwards!

And you say, "Well, put your anchor points out and in against that horrible, bad thing again. What is it?"

He's a mirror and he says — somebody came along, and they said, "You know, all policemen are bad." At that moment he starts to fight policemen and he pushes on policemen. If he pushes hard enough on policemen, police-men will arrive right in his lap.

"Oh, it's black." He says, "It's very black."

People — criminals go around trying to find out how they can break the law. They always wind up in the wrong place. All right.

And you say, "Well, put it out and in again."

Now, there's your modus operandi of aberration. It's a mechanical modus operandi. The person forgets how to use his anchor points because they start turning backwards. They go backwards because he's in this universe with heavy gravities and with MEST that can't be punished, and so forth. And so his anchor points — he abandons using them. He said, "I won't use my anch — I will never put out my anchor points again," or something of this sort.

"Oh," he'll say, "it's terrible. It's real bad."

So therefore, anytime he sees something that's bad, he closes with that terminal. So you've got a problem here of closed terminals. How do you resolve closed terminals? You've got two ways to resolve them. You just double-terminal them out here and let them discharge, or you simply have the preclear mock somebody picking them up out of him and carrying them off again.

And you say, "Well put them out and in again. Out and in again." "Hey, what do you know."

He's — all of a sudden say, this is silly, he'll say, "Well, I've always been scared of streetcars," and we've just double-terminaled two streetcars, see, being carried off from the preclear out here into the darkness and dumped. "Now, I can get rid of streetcars any want — time I want to get rid of street-cars. I always thought you had double terminal streetcars. I mean, I thought that streetcars were always going to fall in on you." Of course, he'd never had a chance to run one out because he only had one streetcar. And he never mocked up a second one. He didn't know that his mock-up would work better in this universe than another one. All right.

All of the sudden the curtain of blackness — a protective coating — falls off of the thing and he's standing there looking at the facsimile of the most beautiful bird he ever saw. And he'll start to cover it up real fast and say, "Well, I'm really not interested in this." He's betrayed himself into displaying to himself the beauty of his facsimiles. Isn't that interesting?

One of the main things, then, is communication lag index, and that rises and you're trying to arrive at a communication change. How do you arrive at a communication change? By handling anchor points. That's the next one. All right, now if we have a communication change in the individual, we have a change of beingness, don't we? Well, we want to change the beingness of the preclear for the better, so if we want to change his beingness for the better, then we change his communication index, which is changing his anchor points, or changing his beingness, which is changing his anchor points, because it's changing his space.

Now, they — he does have facsimiles that are bad, and they do affect him. But once he finds out that it isn't a question of all facsimiles being bad, then he starts to get a little bit interested and he'll suddenly start controlling them.

And if we want to change the things he thinks are bad, all we've got to do is resolve the fact that he has collapsed on his terminals with something that's bad and we've done it. We've done it. And all other techniques are rococo. They're just gilding the lily. But these other techniques are valuable.

Well, what is the basic mechanism of control? The basic mechanism of control is a present time drill. And the present time drill has to do with leading out or smashing in a preclear's anchor points.

There's one tiny, little special technique — I give you an idea of this — special technique that comes out of this matching postulates. It's terribly interesting. It's the order lag. There's a communication lag and then there's the order lag.

Now, if you'll give a preclear some kind of a process like this: Here we have out here an anchor point. We give him as an anchor point, let's give him a cockatoo, a beautiful white parrot. And we'll say, "All right, now that's an anchor point. Now have somebody come along and take that cockatoo and smash it into your face." And just — you just make him do that two or three times. Now, by the way, you double-terminal this. You would have two cockatoos, you see, and have two people come along and smash two cockatoos into his face. And that way he gets space, otherwise, you're working in one-dimensional space or two-dimensional space. And it's not easy to work that way. Let's work in three-dimensional space. So we get a smash-in and a hard smash-in of this character and we get the preclear with the feeling of having been betrayed.

When a person gives himself an order how long does it take for it to go into action? He says, "All right," and he says, "now I'll put on the brake." How long does it take him to put on the brake? Five hours or a fifth of a second?

Now, we get him — and have him (somebody) pick up that cockatoo then and hold it way out. Two terminals, you see, out there. Just hold it way out. And he gets the feeling of being ridiculed. All the rest of the emotions run off on this.

Well, you know fellows have setups on certain circuits that are — have terrible order lags, so they think the order is never obeyed. That is when somebody else has handled their body for them too often and too long, and they get a terminal set up in there and a circuit set up in there so that they've got a big order lag on one subject. That's one subject, and they've got such a big order lag on this subject that they can't handle it.

What's sympathy? He's getting sympathy for it automatically if he's got two cockatoos of the same size — two cockatoos of the same size in the same plane, then the cockatoos are sympathizing with each other. And if they're two cockatoos of the same size, then they're agreeing with each other. And that is reality — agreement — and that's sympathy. And he is looking at them, so that's admiration. And you have just run the whole package off by using what? Two terminals. Two terminals and having them pushed in or brought out.

Now, in other words, an order should go through immediately. You should say, "Eat," and the body eats. And yet the order lag will be "Eat." Well, the fellow goes and washes his hands and he puts on his coat, and polishes up his shoes and he walks out, and he reads the afternoon paper a little bit and he comes in and he says, "Dinner ready yet?" He's known it for a half an hour.

Now, you'll have other people doing this to the preclear and the preclear doing this to other people.

Then they get a new cook next week and that's the way it goes, you see?

"All right, you mock up two little boys. Now you mock yourself up walking in and picking up — that's from two sides, see — picking up a picture from the little boy and then carrying them way off and holding them." And you know, one of the most saddest feelings will come over him. Boy, that's really an overt act! He took somebody's pictures.

Now, that would be an order lag. He tells himself to eat and then he does eighty other things. What is this? This is a circuit, same kind of a circuit that gives you a communication lag and it's hidden on a hidden influence. There's some kind of a hidden influence about eating and he's . . . so on.

What's the most overt act you could do then? It would be to make some-body have bad pictures and take away their good pictures. And that would be a real overt act. What's the basic overt act? Hurting somebody? No. What's the basic overt act? The basic overt act is turning beauty to ugliness or evaluating things as ugly.

But somebody has controlled his eating for him. This is where an inter-posed control has happened. And what do you know, the hidden influence is a study of interposed controls. Hidden controls have been put in the line. He gets so afraid of hidden controls that he knows he's got circuits.

That says what's the most aberrative factor in this society today would be the art critic. That would be him. That's the dog, go shoot him. Go steal his anchor points. Only he hasn't got any. He's running the dramatization "Art is bad. Art is bad. Art is bad. That fellow's art's bad. Somebody else's art's bad. Somebody else's art's bad." He's just dramatizing, that's all.

So you find out he has a habit, or the preclear has something you don't — he doesn't like to do, you'll find him going backwards.

And the way you steal people's facsimiles is simple. Oh, there's lots of tricks. Any kind of a trick you could think of would be how one interchanged facsimiles. And so you say to this fellow, "Art is bad."

He says, "I don't like to smoke. I'm not going to smoke; therefore, I'm smoking. I don't like to smoke! And yet I'm smoking. So I don't like . . . Oh, dear! Well, I don't think I will smoke anymore. Where's a cigarette?"

And therefore he says, "Well, I guess I don't think the picture's so good. It hasn't got much sound or anything else in it." And feels sad about it. And when he gets real weak, why, then you pick it up and walk off with it. See? You get the — get the . . . That's what an art critic does.

Now, there you're just getting the reversed angle on this. Now, you'll get somebody saying, "I think I'd like a cigarette" and twenty minutes later suddenly lights one spontaneously and recalls nothing about having ordered himself to then. So he'll say, "You know I get — I get impulsive! I have impulses which tell me to do things. And I don't know where they came from because I don't remember back two hours."

Anyway the basic overt act — and the basic is that, is the theft of the picture — and the basic . . . You know, this stuff — if this stuff were born out of theory I would say, "For God's sakes, how incredible!" But it happens that this stuff happens to be born out of empirical data gained in practice. That's what this material is here. This that I'm telling you is the workable side of it.

Order lag time. You've got a communications lag index and an order lag index, then, and you could measure out of any individual his capability, his beingness and so forth. What interposes this? Is just can't handle communication points over a certain period of time or in a certain area or on a certain subject. What do you do with this, then? You get him to pick up this mock-up and push it out and pull it in and push it out and pull it in, until he can at last push this subject out and pull it in at will. And the darnedest things will turn up.

I'm telling you what seems to be, then, from an observation of preclears and work.

He's never able to get up in the morning; he's always tired when he gets up in the morning. He doesn't want to get up in the morning until 8:30 and he knows he ought to be up in the morning at 8 o'clock and he can't get up in the morning. And this is what he's telling you about and this is why he's worried. That's just because there is a period in his life when somebody else got him up when he was groggy, something like that, all the time. That's interposed control.

All right. And what's the most aberrative kind of a postulate then? Would be an opinion. The most aberrative postulate would be an opinion.

Now, you'll find out, he says, "I can give up cigarettes, I can give up cigarettes, I can give up cigarettes; I try and I try and I try." And what do you know, you find out that he's been punished into having an order lag so that he has to smoke cigarettes. He got punished for smoking, which gives him too much MEST universe, so that he says, "Mustn't smoke — smokes." And it's just a snapped-closed circuit just of that character, and it's just as idiotic as that.

And why can't somebody recall his childhood? Well, he can't recall his childhood . . . You want to — want to show a preclear why he can't recall his child-hood, you have Mama coming in from the right and Mama coming in from the left and they pick up his body and they carry it off and they hold it. And then Mama coming out of the darkness from the right and the left carrying the body of a little ugly, warty, horrible toad or something and pushing it onto one. Double terminal. Mama walks in and pushes the toad's body onto him. Then Mama picks up one and — not the toad body, that's gone by the boards — Mama picks up one's body again and walks off with it again. Then Mama — you know, in other words, this and that. Or mock up one walking into the house with a stick and having Mama say, "Hm! That's bad!" When — totally baffled, here's this beautiful stick and Mama said it was bad. And you have to get rid of the stick. Boy, that's silly. "Well to hell with this old dame!" That's the immediate reaction. To hell with her. "I'll just hide everything I've got if that's the way this family's going to be run. They're liable to get ahold of my best, nicest dreams and facsimiles and smash them, that's what! So I'll hide them."

The MEST universe goes backwards. He's got too much MEST universe in him. When he says do one thing, he does the opposite. That's a habit. And that is not an order lag time, that is an order lag reversal or an order reversal.

Bang! There goes the whole memory of childhood. Because is there a memory there? No, there isn't. There's a lot of nice beautiful facsimiles here and there, and there's a lot of nice bad ones. The whole family has constituted itself as an art critic.

You'll find these things are solvable in forms of communications points. The fellow says, "Put out your communication points" and all the communication points go backwards. You solve that, you've solved his habits. You've solved all these various things that he couldn't control otherwise.

You come in with a rock. "Oh, that's bad." You come in and company's sitting in the room — the living room and you say, "Look at these — look at these old fogies sitting around here. No motion. No motion at all. Why, these people are likely to be dead! If you walk in, they're liable to die sitting there — no motion, so I'll just turn a couple of handsprings here on the rug and show them that you can get into action around here," and so forth. And so you turn a couple of handsprings out on the rug and knock over a glass of lemonade. Lemonade's easy to come by, glasses are easy to come by, rugs are easy to come by, he can just mock them up any time you wants, you know, and there's nothing to that — and everybody's mad! What are they mad about? Well, you're not supposed to disturb grown-ups. Oh, my! Grown-ups are a hidden influence!

That is really the subject of auditing. Now, there's a great deal that you could practice; there's a great deal that you could know. There are a lot of techniques here. I'll give you just a brief rundown.

Do you know most adults walking around today are so thoroughly parked in their childhood that they won't tell you this right off the bat, but they feel like children. They know they're children. They know they're little boys and little girls. They know they're not adults, but they're pretending to be adults. They think that's their basic pretense. Actually, their basic pretense is much more amusing. Their basic pretense is pretending they're being human. That's their basic pretense and they know that's just a pretense.

You could double-terminal anybody or you can double-terminal any MEST object facing itself and the object will discharge and run out all of its aberrative content — that's all. You can double-terminal postulates — any postulate facing another postulate — and it will run out, desensitize. That's a technique.

Now, they'll get worried about this horrible feeling of pretense they have. Well, you can double-terminal out this feeling of pretense they have when they start running in on something like that. Or you could have "I'm pretending I'm an adult" facing "I'm pretending I'm an adult." You see? You could have "I'm pretending I'm human" facing "I'm pretending I'm human." You could have "I'm never going to put out anchor points again." And that seems to be the key phrase. That's what keeps him pinned down in the body. If he's never going to put out anchor points again, he's not going to push this body out anyplace, you see? So he's never going to get out of the body. Simple. The body's just an anchor point.

You can put up two communication points up to the corners of a room and simply hold them there. And if you'll hold them there long enough, you'll come up to present time. That's another technique.

Now, because of double terminals and the face — the fact that terminals collapse, then he — the thetan walking out of the body creates a double terminal situation. Now, he's double terminal collapse, you see? You can see the two terminals discharge one against the other. Two terminals discharge against the other when they're put side by side, any time. Particularly sixth dynamic terminals. So you put them side by side and what do you get out of this? You get a double terminal discharging. And you don't even have to see the discharge. But it will discharge. And you can put up Mama facing Mama and all of a sudden the fellow is no longer worried about Mama and somehow or other by himself. So he's got a double terminal proposition there: Mama discharging against Mama.

Double-terminaling MEST objects — planets, suns, walls, furniture, cars and so forth — is really another technique, because it's so effective. All right.

Now, you get the thetan who thinks he is mocked up just like the body — in order to control it — walking away from the body which looks just like him — you've got a double terminal, naturally. So of course you get the body and the thetan collapsing and the fellow can't get out of his body. Every time he makes a double terminal out of it — bang!

The double-terminal of the corners of the room is merely a technique to get somebody to present time. It is not nearly as effective a technique as the last technique I'll mention, which is simply getting his anchor points carried in and out by him and by others, on a double terminal basis.

Well, you solve this, as I've said earlier, just by mocking up the body and mocking up the body and mocking up the body, particularly the back of the body, and just keep mocking it up and mocking it up and mocking it up until the thetan just says, "Well, what the heck!" It — there's no further discharge between these two.

And that, at this time, is the most effective technique which I know, because it brings the person up to knowing how to know, by restoring to him the ability to handle the only thing by which he can know: anchor points. And it solves the case and it solves his curiosity, and it solves his knowingness and it brings him into present time, and a lot of other things.

But you run the postulate out, "I shall never put out anchor points again," versus the postulate "I shall never put out anchor points again," and you will hit the prime incidents and hidden influences on the track which give this individual the impulse to compute instead of be.

Now, you can interplay these techniques, however, and interuse these techniques to get yourself out of any sudden little difficulty you'll run into.

You see now what a computing circuit is. It's "How can I figure so I won't have to be." And a fellow figures as much as he isn't. And a fellow is as much as he doesn't figure. That, of course, would seem to indicate then that the stupidest fellow would be the beingest fellow you ever saw. Well, as a matter of fact, you go around very, very stupid people and they really think they are. This really doesn't have anything much to do with intelligence. Intelligence is only the ability to recall data and add it up and put it back together again and figure.

He comes into session and he's so worried, he's just so worried, he's just so worried; he doesn't quite . . . So you say, "What are you worried about?"

But a thetan can figure so instantaneously, so quickly, that it really doesn't matter much, you see, about circuits or computations and so on. He can set up a mind any time he wants one, on any subject. That's no reason why he's got a set article called "a mind" which has to do, itself, all his figuring for him.

"Well, my boss, and so on and so on and so on."

The art is "to be." And the question of beingness is anchor points. So you start working with anchor points with your preclear and you're going to get there. And you avoid working with anchor points and you're not going to get very far. You'll get quite a ways, but you won't get far enough. Because you want to change this person.

And you'd say, "Mock up the boss facing the boss."

Now, in all other branches of psychotherapy there have ever been, they were addressed to the body, they were addressed to the mind. So are we working in the field of psychotherapy? No, we're not.

"Well, that wouldn't help because it's something I don't know, you see? I mean, I don't know whether or not . . ." and so on.

I don't know whether you — then you can call this — you can't call this a religion, because a religion had to do, ordinarily, with some kind of an idol or a god or a devil or something of this sort. But it happens that we are working with the human soul. Because they've always called this thing the human soul. This is the guy. And they've called it "He has a soul" or "I have a soul" as though it's a separate item. That means he's no longer taking any responsibility for his own self. He doesn't — he isn't responsible for himself anymore. And that's his basic idea of existence. He says, "I'll be a body and then I will not any longer be responsible for myself." You see? That's a negation of responsibility which is enormous. And it's that bridge which you have to cross in processing. He's not taking responsibility. He won't perceive or use force. Hah! We again have anchor points then, don't we? So anchor point drill works that out too.

Now, you say, "Mock up the boss facing the boss."

But don't be surprised if in this process this preclear says to you, "I have a thetan fooling around me. He is attacking me." He's got some old mock-up body that he had which he's used and he's got that thing set up someplace or another, and he's not taking responsibility for himself anymore and he won't take responsibility for it. And you could get any kind of a human body to discharge as two terminals to a point where it would just disappear, except you're not going to get this double — this body of this thetan he keeps seeing around him. He'll tell you some of the darnedest things. That's not going to reduce until he accepts responsibility for it. Until he realizes, in other words, it's himself.

"Oh, all right. Mock up the boss facing the boss."

Now is it up to you to tell him it's himself? No, it's not. No, you just double-terminal it and he comes into the realization. All of a sudden he says, "That's the body they gave me in Fac One. I've never wanted it."

"You got him there?"

"Yeah."

"Now, mock up the office wall behind him versus the office wall behind him and get the boss too. Get the whole scene there facing the whole scene: the wall, the chair, the desk of the boss versus the wall, the chair, the desk of the boss. Get those facing that on a double terminal basis. You got that?"

"Yeah, yeah, hmmm. What am I worried about this for? What are you doing this for? Why don't we get down and do something important on the case?"

"Well, it's because you're worried about the boss."

"I'm not worried about the boss. What are you talking about? You must be crazy!"

You can take any kind of a standard reaction on an individual, and do that with it, either by thought or by terminal. Then can you alter your own mental state of beingness at will? Yes, you sure can. Can you alter a preclear's at will? Boy, you've said it.

Now, how do you process a whole group of people? You could process them with Self Analysis, mock-ups only. Or you could process them very broadly on beingness. Let's double-terminal these things, and be them double-terminal, then, and be them.

And a guy doesn't have to be able to get two terminals on these things. And you say birds and bees and fish and chairs, and be a chair and be a light, and you just keep on with this for a long time with individuals.

Can they single-terminal these things safely? Yes. Because they always double-terminal them. That's a joke. Of course, they can single-terminal them because they can double-terminal them. Because they're a terminal and any-time they mock one of these things up you've got two terminals there, even though one is superimposed over the other, so it's always a double terminal. But it doesn't run out very well.

So you group process in terms of double terminal mock-ups, preferably of MEST objects, and preferably easy MEST objects to look at. And you give — if you're giving double terminal stuff, give quite a lag, quite a long time after your command, that you give the next command.

In other words, say, "All right, now let's be a wall. Now get a wall facing a wall. Any wall." Be satisfied to let it rest for a few minutes, and give your next one.

"All right, be a chair facing a chair."

Not fast is it? But desperately effective, desperately effective, and that's what you want.

Your optimum Group Process, however, is Self Analysis for large groups (very large groups) because it'll get them there, eventually.

Why? Because it's telling the thetan that he can do the one thing which he can do, and that's create.

All right. Let that be a talk on this subject. I know that you're going to have success with these techniques. And I know this is very easy.

If anyone should ask you what you were doing and why you were doing this, and that the thetan is so-and-so and such-and-such, and they try to draw you into a big argument; they're trying to tell you there are hidden influences around someplace that tell you you shouldn't monkey with this, or something of the sort, all you have to do is drop a real slug on them and it just knocks off the whole conversation rather rapidly, and said, "Well, you see, we do happen to be freeing the human soul, and bringing salvation to an individual before he dies." That settles the argument.

I want to thank you very, very much for your attention.

Good night.