This is November the 20th, afternoon lecture, and we are going to talk today about the — all these lectures today are going to be on the subject of Creative Processing.

Continuing on, now, with this anatomy of Creative Processing, I hope you understand when I say "structure" that I mean something which is conceived out of a postulate. And which is only an item, and which becomes an item simply because — an agreement that it is an item.

This afternoon, it doesn't much matter what sequence I give you this data because it's all — it's all more or less the same data.

So in order to go over structure we have to, to a large degree, go over the anatomy of an object. And the anatomy of an object would also include the anatomy of an energy.

But what you must know — what you must know are the component parts of the material universe and the component parts of any universe and all the dynamics and all possible breakdowns on all dynamics, and you should know those just by rote. You should be able to quote those in your sleep.

You see — let's take a lightning bolt. You don't ordinarily consider a lightning bolt an object. And yet, a lightning bolt, compressed, would make an object. See, that's your matter — evolution of matter. Evolution of matter is from "be" down to "have." So actually you're still dealing in function. But unless you consider this in terms of structure, you're liable to miss the boat on what you ask your preclear to do with what.

And you should be able also to know the interrelationship of manifestations, such as time, space, energy and the manifestation of experience that fits with this, which is be, do and have, and that interrelationship with start, change and stop, and that interrelationship with creation, growth, decay and destruction.

All right. Now, the first part of this talk, mainly about objects. Let's now break down objects. And, of course, we break them down into the eight dynamics. The eight dynamics are the easiest way to break down objects known.

Now, all of these things interrelate. The component parts of a universe would be, you might say, items. And those items make up what we have in this subject now as structure. And structure, then, has a certain function and behavior. And the function and behavior is time, space, energy; have, do and be; and start, stop, change; and so forth. These are functional to us. And when we say "functional," that means that there's a pattern of operation. And that is applied to what? That is applied to structure. And the structure that we have to do with consists of the eight dynamics, all manifestations of energy, all possible breakdowns of any universe.

If you say "object" and still mean "doingness with an object," you have the manifestations of energy which again make objects. So we're talking about this whole range of beingness and havingness, really, when we talk about an object. An object can't exist without space. Without intention of an object, or something of the sort, there is no point in energy. Energy goes down and makes an object.

Now, don't let me hear any of you coming to me and telling me some case that's in relatively bad shape can create and destroy anything until you know what that word "anything" covers. And don't say "create" and "destroy" until you know what completely that covers as a cycle. You see, the reason we say "create" and "destroy" is we are naming the two ends of start, change and stop.

So now, when we take these, however, we can simply take these on the lower level. And that's why I consistently use the word object as connected with structure. Because you could draw up a catalog of objects. A complete catalog of objects would give you, really, a complete catalog of time. The best way to draw this up would be on the eight dynamics.

And it's all very well to take someone who would be at a certain band on the Tone Scale and say, "Yes, he can create," that is to say, mock up this and then knock it out. And he can make it appear, and then make it disappear. And he can make it appear, and then he can make it disappear. And you say, "That's fine — then that person can create and destroy anything." Well, on a certain point of the tone band, yes.

There's the first dynamic. The first dynamic is divided into four objects. It's divided up into the thetan — the thetan considers himself an object, rightly or wrongly. He has time, and he considers himself an identity, and so on. And that is the primary characteristic of an object: it has identity. So if you have — if you have an identity, you have an object. That's what identity is. All right. Now, take this thetan — he's one.

A 1.1, for instance, will create simply by having something slip in on him. It sort of slides in. He gets it out of the stimulus-response bank, and it slides in sideways, and then he slides away from it. And he's created and destroyed it — he thinks.

The next thing is the thetan's standard memory bank, or the accumulation of energies which have formed into ridges and rigid structures as memories - facsimiles — around him. That's an object — the standard memory banks of the thetan.

A 1.5 makes something appear, holds it, and — crash — condenses it. Very interesting.

Now we've got what the thetan considers to be the reactive memory bank, and that gets all mixed up with his bank. And the reactive memory bank is, of course, the memory bank of the GE. That's the reactive mind and the somatic mind, according to the first book. But they form up into a bank, which is an object, again, and that is the GE.

A 2.0 simply gets on a sort of a General Sherman tank sort of affair and mocks up something or other in an antagonistic sort of a way and then rolls forward over it and sort of leaves it in the past someplace or leaves it someplace else.

Now we have the GE as an object. Well, the GE would consider himself an object, too. He's an identity. He exists in space (he thinks), and he exists in certain relations and conditions in the MEST universe.

So, what are you talking about when you're talking about create and destroy? You're talking about the gradient scale of the Tone Scale, aren't you? So, when you speak of create and destroy, you must understand that there happen to be as many gradients of create as there are points on the affinity part of the Tone Scale. That is emotion. And there happen to be methods of destroying things which match each part of the Tone Scale. So our Tone Scale becomes quite important to us.

And now we have a structural thing which has its own laws monitored by a GE, which is the human body. Now, that is an object again. So when we start creating and destroying bodies, let's not forget that a body has four parts.

Now, this Tone Scale actually is a cycle of creation and destruction itself And it starts in with creation, not of energy, but of space. And from this space we go forward in terms of manifestation, and it spins on down to a point where there's just an object, and any space that's there is sort of congealed in and messed in with the object. So look at that. It tells you that somebody who is in apathy wouldn't create any space. Somebody in apathy wouldn't create space; they would simply create the object. And that was as much space as there would be.

Now, the Freudian approach to existence was to have an ego and an alter ego. And the alter ego was everything a fellow was connected with. Well, he was actually not knowing or not using a gradient scale. He was not prepared to take a look at the interdependency of objects and the connection the preclear had with that. But that's what you're studying — the interdependency of objects — when you study the eight dynamics; you're studying this interdependency. So, when we have mock-ups of the preclear, it isn't just the preclear's body.

Now, it's kind of hard for somebody quite low on the Tone Scale to conceive that an object might have space around it. But if you were to get inside the head of some preclear and look around very carefully — if you were to get inside this person's head and take a look at what he was mocking up, or if you were to step alongside of him thetawise and actually take a look at his facsimiles (and by the way, you can do this) — you would see ... This is not a necessary part of processing, I don't advise it at all. When you tune up to his ridge and his ridge blows up, you get it — when you do that. So that's not good processing.

Now, his body breaks up into "then bodies" and "will be bodies." (Any object, you see, breaks down into those categories.) And his memory banks break down into those categories as an object. And he himself breaks down in those categories as an object. And the GE breaks down into those categories as an object. And if you just start processing the functional, the performance — that is, that cycle of the organism from create to destroy — you start processing the first dynamic, remember to process this first dynamic as having four parts. And you will then be able to take this preclear to pieces, really, and get him functioning where he ought to be functioning.

One of the best functions of an E-Meter, by the way, is to keep your vision off of the preclear and keep it on the meter. And it then permits the preclear to emote and groan and moan and do anything he wants to do, and all you're interested in is swing of the needle. You can be very, very detached and dispassionate because you're really not in communication with him. The meter's in communication with him and you're in communication with the meter. So you put — you've put a fuse in between you and the preclear. And that's quite nice to have. All right.

Now, we'll just break down the universe into the next part: second dynamic. And we can break down all universes into these parts. But we don't have to break down other universes into these parts. Differences can exist. But here's your second dynamic. Your second dynamic has to do with sex. Now, this is very aberrative because he wants to be an effect of-sex. He wants that sensation, which is to say he wants the energy. And it is one of the higher levels of desire, is sex. So therefore he wants sensation in the field of sex. And sensation is an energy. And sensation is communication. And so, as an energy, the desire of sex is an object. It's just a chunk of energy. And you will find it stored that way in the banks. It's just an object. It's a desire — sex. All right, there we have that portion of this.

If you were — you get inside this facsimile and take a look at what he was mocking up, you would find, low on the Tone Scale, you'd find just an object. He'd have an object. And you would find that object running him or running at its own volition to the degree that it's low on the Tone Scale. That is to say, he isn't moving it; he isn't telling it to move and not move. He just puts it there and it moves. I mean, let's differentiate this as a very important point in processing.

Now, let's look over sex and let's take it in its various subdivisions. Let's completely wipe out of our minds the idea of healthy sex, good sex, normal sex, bad sex and other aberrative pieces of the moral code, and let's just look at it as sensation — sensation. Now, sex divides into the various characteristics of — what do you know — the eight dynamics. Yeah, the eight dynamics. But here's where you get male–female designation. And the first time you get male–female designation on all the eight dynamics, and where you should treat them on a male–female category and where they tie in so terribly with whether a person is a man or a woman, is on the second dynamic. So we have second dynamic object — eight dynamics, male–female. You can draw this as a graph.

He puts it out there and it goes into motion and he mocks up a little girl and this little girl is skipping rope, the next thing you know she's riding in a car, and the next thing you know she's on a rolly coaster. And he'll go — and he'll say, "Yeah, I mocked up a little girl, yeah, there she is. And she's rushing down the street and she is eating candy bars, and she's doing this and she's doing that and so forth," and "Yeah, I got a little girl here."

You see, you get the second dynamic — eight dynamics are its component parts. You got the first dynamic. For the eight dynamics are a component part of the first dynamic. The eight dynamics are a component part of each one of the subdivisions of the four I gave you for the first dynamic. You see? This thing just breaks down. It's just like one of these wheels within wheels within wheels within wheels, and you could do yourself a lot of little roulette wheels or something of the sort, and sit there and spin them, and you would get function and structure and everything else coming up, and questions would appear on this thing. Very easy to make — it's just a little philosophic machine — that's what it is.

And you say, "All right. Now, knock it out. Knock it out as a process."

All right. But don't forget this about the second dynamic. And the only reason I'm punching this heavily on the second dynamic is very few people realize the sensation of sex is very often present on the subject of God. That's fascinating. It's very fascinating. You'll find someone who's been terribly religious this way and terribly religious that way, and you can't solve this. I mean, it just keeps coming up, one way. And you want to know what do we mock up? What do we mock up? Or we're doing an assessment, which is — this is very vital for assessment, all this data. We've got this person on the E-Meter and we say, "All right. Now, sex."

"Okay, we'll knock it out as a process." Sure! He just discontinues the facsimile. He doesn't destroy the little girl, he just discontinues the facsimile. He's got about as much control over this facsimile — he's got this control over the facsimile: "I can concentrate on an object known as a little girl. What it does after that, I have no responsibility for it whatsoever."

Whoom! Bang!

Now, you'll notice as your preclear gets better — if you wanted to check this, you would find that the preclear got less and less and less random motion. It's controlled motion. The object moves only when he says, "Move." The object stops only when he says, "Stop." The object turns around only when he says, "Turn around." And pretty low on the Tone Scale, a person considers this pretty arduous. This is an awful hardship on him. This is a terrible hardship on him to have to actually tell these things to work — they just don't work automatically. It's the way they go — back and forth.

And you say, "All right. Now . . ." we name it off, "animals and boys and girls and babies and young people and old people and parents and . . ." — anything you want to name in the way of an object in connection with sex. And all of a sudden, this machine should do a dive. And what do you know, it doesn't dive. It isn't libido because of Mama and it isn't libido because of Papa and it isn't this because of that and it isn't this . . . The package of sensation doesn't lie in any of those departments as aberrative, till all of a sudden we find out there's a tremendous sexual urge about Jesus Christ. Well, he's a man, isn't he? And he keeps hanging up there and he's wounded, isn't he? And all that sort of thing. And we'll find this person's primary sexual centering is on the crucifix.

Well sir, when you look up the Tone Scale, then, you'll find the object is first — the lowest manifestation of it is concept of an object. That's all he gets. Now, what you've got to do is work up a perception of an object. If you work up the perception of an object, you will have eventually an object that goes into random motion. That is to say, he says, "Yeah, I've got a concept of a horse." Now, as he gets better on the line, he will one day say, "Yeah, I've got a horse." He's got a horse. He can see, feel, hear, do something with this horse. And you'll find, however, the horse is trotting, galloping, going over hedges, pole-vaulting, somersaulting, whinnying — doing all sorts of uncontrollable things. And he'll tell you, perhaps — because he's ashamed of this, he may even tell you as an auditor, "Oh, yes, I have this horse. Yeah, I got this horse."

Unless you just throw aside your barriers and so forth with regard to this sort of thing, you're liable not to hit some of these preclears. I mean, this is very easy: sexual urge on the part of the crucifix.

"Now, make him trot."

And we trace this back down to the preclear in the fourteenth century was in love with a choirboy or something. It doesn't matter what we trace it down to. The point is that this person is all wound up on the second dynamic, let's say, and we have to take it in terms of objects, so we take all possible objects of all eight dynamics on the subject of sex.

"Oh, he's trotting." And that's what you want to watch for. And he suddenly says, "No, he's not trotting, he's pole-vaulting." All he's doing is he's describing a motion picture which he's looking at or he's describing a still picture which is giving manifestations that might be conceptions of. You see?

Now, it wouldn't seem — that's — the reason I'm punching it- is because it wouldn't seem immediately logical to you. It isn't logical. It exists, which is probably a better proof. Now, therefore, the second dynamic apparently has — division one is sensation.

So now you get up the Tone Scale a little bit — you get up the Tone Scale to grief, if the person is at grief on the Tone Scale, he gets this object and he may tell you, "Yes, it's gone." He made it go by having had it. See, that'd be grief. Grief runs consistently "I had it, but I don't have it." So it's easy for him to get the object — very easy for him to get the object — and then he makes it disappear by having had it. The object really is still there. It's just in his yesterday, because that is the primary dramatization of grief. Grief is saying all the time, "I had it. I had it and now it's gone. It's lost," and so on — but it exists somewhere.

People have been hammering at me to get sex as an act differentiated from sex as children. I've never quite been able to see why this was, because the truth of the matter is that the creation of one's own universe gives one the sensation of creation and can have far more joy in creation than the creation of children through the sexual act. There's an urge in that direction, but it's the urge toward creation, it is not the urge toward just one sex or something of the sort. This urge toward creation gets all wound up in an act, which is no more and no less than an energy flow. So again, we're doing with an energy flow.

All right. Let's go up the Tone Scale a little bit higher on this, and we come up to fear. This person on fear isn't standing up to — about this time he . . . It actually just works right on up the Tone Scale on objects. He's not standing his ground on any object whatsoever. They'll come in — flip, flip — out, flip, in, flip, so on.

Why does this person want this energy? You'll have to solve that, you see? Why does he want this energy? Why does he keep holding on to these objects? (And we'll go into that later today, on the desirability of the object.) And you're going to have to punch around and you'll find you'll solve this case much faster in trying to find out why this person has to have this energy. And when you find out why he has to have this energy, you've got an object. Not what the energy is doing to him or why other people make him .. .

"Have you got a horse?"

It should strike you as rather strange that a slave will stay alive although whipped and beaten and in chains. That's completely irrational. Why should he stay alive? Well, he has to just — the condition is, it must be that he desires an object. Even though he's beaten, everything else, he still has hope for an object and he's still holding on to an object. He's still holding on to sensation — something of the sort.

He'll say, "Yes, I got a horse."

Now, get the idea — emotion, as such, is an energy flow. And this slave could say, "I am holding on to it because of love of." And he's immediately told you there is a very desirable sector known as — to him — as love. And that is not an esoteric postulate, it's an energy flow. It's an object. It's an object — a manifestation of. An object is just a manifestation of energy. And you're going to work with a gradient scale, you might as well work with a gradient scale.

The head of the horse appears, the tail of the horse appears — flip, and then he gets a saddle — flip. He — sure, he's got a horse — in sections, occasionally.

This person who goes around all the time and says, "Love, love, love, love, and it all must break down to love. And it's got to be love this way, and it's because everybody loves each other and so on," and he finds that there's a terrific desirability in this energy. And you're going to ask him to run an engram? No! He might hit on some love someplace and he might get rid of that. And unless he's willing to recognize that he can create and that he can handle and he can destroy any energy, he's not going to be able to part with his objects.

And it'd be interesting if you told him to chase this horse away, because this horse — he wouldn't be able to do that. He could get horses running away — preferably after he has been severely hurt or something, but . . . You get horses running away. But chase a horse away? No, he would not be able to chase a horse away because that's what's wrong with him. He can't chase things away, they chase him away.

So you see, you've got to hit him where it hurts. What's he want to hold on to? That's what you want to know, rather than what he wants to get rid of. Sure, he'll tell you ad nauseam what he wants to get rid of. But that is, when I say "something he will not create or destroy" — sure, he can create or destroy anything. Except an energy flow known as — to him — as so-and-so. This — he couldn't do it. No, no. There's something on that board.

You say, "Destroy it now." All right, he runs away. That's the best thing he does. So, you know, "I haven't got a horse anymore. No more horse." The heck he hasn't. That horse is down over that hill and in that gully about eight miles away and getting further at every moment. But he doesn't immediately perceive the horse so he says, "Well, I don't got the horse." But he knows very well he's got a horse. He knows there's a horse over there someplace — in sections. Tail appearing, and hoof appearing, and horseshoe appearing, so on — flick-flick-flick-flick.

All right. We break down the second dynamic — break down this second dynamic into all dynamics. And remember that ARC, as such, is an energy. And remember that your aberrated preclear treats energy as an object. But a thought is an object to an aberrated preclear. And that's why we keep using this word object. All right.

Now, at 1.5 you say, "All right, now get this object." And there's only one thing he's interested in with regard to this object. He can get the object, but will it stand still? And he won't tell you he's got the object well or anything of the sort, unless he's got a still object. That's what he really prefers.

ARC. What's he got to have? The truth of the matter is that you could handle him two ways. You could show him that this thing existed so there is some reason for him to keep on living. You could actually punch it up and increase his desire to live, because it's because this seems to be scarce to him that he finds it worthless to live. He's on Earth always for some reason or other. He is alive for some reason or other. There's something keeping him going — something. And it is the lack of that something which has dished him in. You call this an object.

But if he's got the idea that the object should be in motion and so forth, then he will be working on something else than what you ask him about. See, he's working on start, stop and change already. He isn't working on the object. He isn't working to get a better object. He's working on start, stop and change of this object. In other words, he's very concentrated on his exact point on the Tone Scale. He's tremendously concentrated on this one thing. It's an obsession with him. It's motion. It worries him. So any object you've got would worry him if it were moving contrary to what he thought. And he wouldn't tell you he had the object.

You'll find some people came down here because they heard there were a lot of bodies and that bodies had a lot of fine sexual sensations or something of the sort. Oh, unlimited, unlimited! Salesmen came through and spread some literature around. And the next thing you know, a fellow comes down here and he runs slam-bang into the Catholic Church, or something of the sort. It's not so good. Sex is evil. He never heard about this before. That's just making an object scarce, you see?

Now, your process, and you as an auditor, are there to put the thing in properly controlled motion. All you want is an object which you can then work with. And all he is trying to do is say, "Well, I got the object; that's incidental. But let's just work — work — work with this thing, and just stop it. No, it isn't stopping properly, it keeps rushing — it goes — no. Rrrh!" Well, he's got the object, and you just watch this fellow.

It's been a terrible, terrible problem — terrible problem, by the way — is trying to make things scarce enough so people would work for them. Then you could impose control and slavery. The way you get control and slavery is to make something scarce that people want. Then they have to work for it.

By the way, your 1.5 is tensing against the motions. And if you were to put a "wobble meter" or a muscular reaction meter on his body here and there, you would actually find that his muscles were jumping, they were tensing, going hard, this way and that. Very tiny little tremors that you possibly wouldn't be able to detect as he sits there with his clothes on. But you possibly might be able to detect the can motion if you had him on an E-Meter. I mean, his fingers possibly gripping the cans slightly, some of his motion will be due to that. The thing will be primarily stuck, but the stuckness of it, any motion that it has, is coming from a tiny vibration of his hand on the grips of the can. What's he trying to do? He's trying to control its motion. He's way over on the stop side of the line.

Your criminal is in complete disagreement with this. He believes he's still in his own universe and he thinks, "You don't have to work to eat. You know darn well all you do is go out and take it." That doesn't mean he's particularly high-toned. He's usually quite an aberrated boy. Because he's aberrated on this level: He knows very well that there doesn't have to be any time imposition between the creation of the space and the energy, and the acquisition of the object. He knows that's true — he's in his own universe, isn't he? I mean, it's all his. He made it all, didn't he? He's sitting on one of the roughest delusions of all to sit on: He's never found out it was another universe.

You see, you can kill something that is supposed to be still by making it move, and you can kill something that is supposed to be in motion by making it stop. You'll just make it — you just twist its purpose. You go counter to its intention to make it die. Now, what's he do when he destroys it? He just goes counter to its intention and it sort of dribbles away. But he's got a solid block of the energy it was. He normally just drags a curtain over the face of it. He just hides it from view. He takes a big black curtain, it doesn't even have asbestos or anything marked on it; he's just got a curtain and he drops a curtain over it.

Now here, then, let's go up into the third dynamic. And let's find out what do we have in the third dynamic in terms of objects. Well, the first thing we have in the terms of the third dynamic in terms of objects is an individual. The third dynamic is composed of individuals. So, if we haven't got bodies solved, we're not likely to solve the third dynamic, because the third dynamic here on Earth is composed of bodies; and it's all an interlocked problem. But the third dynamic may be valuable again to your preclear, tremendously valuable, because it offers an opportunity to.

And you say, "Is it destroyed?"

He may have lots of computations on this one way or the other. But you'll just say "groups" to him: "Could you create or destroy a group?" Sure, he'll create one; he'll destroy one. Fine. Of course, it flickered all the time and he ran away from it to destroy it, and a lot of other things come . . . But you didn't ask that, you just said, "Give me, crea, oh well, we got the third dynamic all buttoned up."

"Sure. Yeah. It's gone. It's gone."

Now, let's take various kinds of groups. There are the groups which appeal to this and the groups which appeal to that and the groups which appeal to something or other. There is the group which appeal to your sense of wanting police: that's called a government. There is the group which will recruit audiences. There is the group into which you can fit yourself on social contacts. There is the group which is preventing something else from happening to you. And then there's belonging to a group because it has something — that would be a society of buying or something of the sort, the cooperative purchasing — lots of these kinds of groups. Or there is the group you belong to because it takes care of your soul or something, and you don't have to worry about it anymore. And there's the group absorbing responsibility in terms of objects.

If you were to ask him very searchingly now, "How did you make it go?" And that is what I am trying to plead with you to ask. "How did you get it?" and "How did you make it go?" "What did you do to make it disappear?" "What did you do to make it appear?"

All right. We get group buildings, group bodies, group people and, again, what? Group thetans. And the meter goes zooonnng! No! He doesn't like any group of thetans. N-o-o-o! No! No, definitely not! That's . . . And all of a sudden we find out that's why he won't get out of his body. He knows doggone well if he takes his status and role again as a thetan, he's done for. Why? Because thetans are stronger than him. Well, how does he know this? Because they told him so. And then you overhaul a little further — because he told them so. And- he wanted to convince them they were, so that then he could show up how strong he was, because they were so strong, or something of the sort. And the problem starts falling apart. But again, we get third dynamic in terms of all dynamics, don't we?

Now, go into communication with your preclear. Ask him what is happening. Ask him what is taking place, and once you find out what is taking place, see if you just can't add this up against the Tone Scale. What is he doing? And what are these things doing to him? Very important. All right.

And we get the fourth dynamic. And the fourth dynamic is the species. We're all out to have the species called "man" survive — or our own team survive, if you want to call that a species, because our own team can be pretty big. It's actually a species amongst other species which inhabit only alligators or something. Now, that's a fact — that's a fact.

Now, to ask somebody at 1.1 to create something — he's trying to make it appear instantaneously, which is perfectly all right. But if he got it instantaneously, then to hold it in any kind of a steady condition whereby it could be made to grow, whereby it could be made to operate, and then get it into a condition whereby it'll gradually fall apart and disappear is an orderly process of which a 1.1 is completely incapable, and that's why he's a 1.1.

You'll find out that teams favor forms. Teams out in the universe favor forms. And they're not forms of "all of them have green hair" and "all of them have blue hair" — and there's not that difference. One is composed solely of fellows that when they mock up an illusion of themselves or take over a body and so forth, the body is an alligator. And the other team runs exclusively dolls. And the dolls are in the form of something or other, and this they consider a race. This is a race. It's a wider, bigger subdivision than the subdivision of man itself. But you have people all out for mankind. Now, that's all right, and that's_ a subdivision of it, you see? All right. Matter of fact, if mankind doesn't wake up to the fact that he is a species, he's not going to be here anymore. Now, the next line . . . As an object, he will cease to not object or object.

He'd want to kind of turn his head so that the extra arm would appear on it. He'd sort of want to back up and see it again sometime or other when it was in the coffin or something or — he's doing a duck and a dodge. But just to get him to get an object — just as you were seeing a Walt Disney film up here now, if you were to see this . . . All right. Blank screen, scenery, an object, object gets bigger and bigger, makes it grow, possibly gets more and more complete, object goes into certain regular and controlled actions which he could — any moment could predict, because he's making it do it.

Now, there's the fifth dynamic. Now, this is awfully important. Friends, lend me your ears for a moment on the fifth dynamic. Don't get your preclear in a state where he can create or destroy anything and omit the fifth dynamic by category.

And you, by the way, get into a tremendously wide theory here of "sanity is the ability to predict motion." If you can predict motion, one is fairly sane. If he can't predict motion, he's not sane. And if he's in an environment where he cannot predict the motion, the environment really is a bit batty. The environment is bad for him. The insane person, just before the lights go out, is very accustomed to say, "I don't know what they're going to do next," or "I don't know what's going to happen next." All right.

Don't miss that one. Just because you're scared on the fifth dynamic, don't flub the dub in assessment. And if you're ever going to hold a gun on yourself while you're assessing a preclear, or ever going to hold a gun on yourself while you're working a case, do it here on the fifth dynamic.

And now you would get this on this screen up here, you'd get a — next would be a gradual diminution of power. And then you would get a gradual decay of the object, and then it would go through into its logical cessation of all motion. And would be very orderly, and your preclear would not be sitting there gripping at the cans and shifting his feet and looking around and dodging. And the thing wouldn't be coming on and off like a flock of neon signs, and he wouldn't be ducking away from it and so forth. This would be an orderly progress.

The extra species break down into five classes, generally, here on Earth — and these are the ones you'll find keyed in, anyway: birds, beasts, fish, insects and spiders. A snake is, of course, really a beast. Only he's a little more like a bird, only his shape is closer to a fish. But if you have any difficulty remembering that one, we will make an arbitrary sixth division and say snakes or reptiles or amphibians. Any way you want to put it — reptiles. Now, don't get the idea that a spider is an insect, because I don't think a spider is an insect. It's a different class.

Now, it would also be reasonable or unreasonable as he desired it to be. It would either agree with what happens in the physical universe or disagree with it, as he desired it to happen. Now, there then is the picture you're trying to get, and you're trying to get it in full color, with full motion, with complete three-dimensional body in space. Not flat cardboards — you want a three-, full-dimensional space, you want its progress to be completely predictable, and you want to get it by all perceptions.

Now, look, don't miss that one. Don't miss that one, because I've seen that going by the boards and being forgotten about: "Well, everybody knows everybody's scared of snakes. Everybody knows everybody's scared of spiders. Everybody ever knows . . ." What do you know — there's this race back on the track evidently — race back on the track of talking snakes. One of the invader forces or something of the sort was predominately snakes.

Now, let me tell you a condition which doesn't exist but which you theoretically . . . All energy has a habit of maintaining itself in perceptions like all other energy. In other words, if a fellow is doing one thing with one perceptic, he's doing it with another perceptic. There'll be one little perceptic a little stronger on. That's the one that you should train up, by the way. One is just a little bit more on than the others ordinarily. But let's have the — let's exaggerate this condition, and let's say that this fellow is a 1.5 with his tactile, a 1.1 with his visio, in apathy with his thermal — that's heat and cold. He is at 2.0 with effort — the impact or weight, motion. You see — you understand that as I list this over that a perception can be in a different condition. Now, you wouldn't find that in one preclear because the perceptions would be across the band pretty well, one just a little bit more on than the others. But all the others, if the preclear is at 1.5, his perception is at 1.5 all the way across the boards. Now, that's got big ridges; ridges set up against incoming perceptions, and all perceptions being translated and transmitted through a hard ridge — that's a 1.5.

And we look through mankind; we look through mankind, and over twelve ethnological groups (he said very learnedly) — "the ethnological groups which I have inspected very carefully in order to give you the very benefit of my adventures" — I find, in each case, the snake is the symbol for treachery, for slander and for the things that are real bad; and in five of them, the primary symbol for sex. Hm. Hm. Interesting, isn't it?

1.1 — all perceptions stirred up and mixed up by the presence of an explosion or a dispersal. A 1.1 always has the explosion or dispersal in his vicinity.

It's not even vaguely interesting that in Freud's work — not even vaguely interesting, though I'll mention it in passing — that the snake was treated as a symbol for sex, which came up because the person was aberrated on sex and therefore they got the symbol for the snake. Now, I have to mention that, by the way, because it'll be stuck in somebody's noggin someplace or other, that "Well, of course — of course, you get snakes connected with sex, because they're a symbol for sex." That's just lousy; that's circuitous logic and doesn't apply.

And in grief we have, then, another ridge of sorts — and there must be an emotion, by the way, between grief and apathy, because they're two ridges, and there should be a dispersal and a flow in between those two. And I think everybody down at that end of the Tone Scale is just so completely fouled up that nobody's ever bothered to invent words. But if you watched them you would see lower band emotions. There's a gradient — tiny gradient scale between grief and apathy. There must be two changes in between there. One would be a straight flow of some sort, and — very minute — and the other one would be a dispersal of some sort. But your apathy, of course, would be kind of solid.

Now, it's all right to discover this datum — and this datum is very important. Yes, young girls connect snakes with sex. Why? Well, it's because of the libido theory of the left-hand side of the ruddy rod, I guess. There's no valid explanation for it, you see, but it's completely dopey, because you take phallic symbolism — well, it's very interesting, but there are only a few geometric shapes possible, and why is it that they pick on snakes? Well, you could have lots of explanations for this and they'd all wind up with this: symbol.

All right, let's take a look then. Let's take a look at this picture of perception. You've got a gradient scale of ridges, flows and dispersals as they go up the line, and your perceptions are matching up with it.

And what do you know: Never in the course or existence of any of the research or the processing of Dianetics or Scientology have I found otherwise than that if the object was feared, it was the object that had created the fear. I found no symbolism. Direct causation has been the primary discovery in all this research. If the preclear is aberrated — he thinks he's aberrated — it's because he has made the postulate that (and generally because he's been told that) he is aberrated. And if you look for the engram, you will find the engram "you are crazy" answers up, to a large degree, his concern for the fact that he is crazy.

Now, what are mock-ups? Mock-ups will follow this line of perception, and the mock-ups will behave according to that gradient scale of perception. How do you know a preclear is getting better? All right, his mock-ups were always in random motion. All of a sudden, one day he can control the motion of his mock-up. He'll say, "You know — you know, every time I see a lorry, the driver isn't singing or screaming or something of the sort, he's just sitting there driving." Well, you wouldn't think that was much of a triumph, but believe me, that's quite a jump on the Tone Scale. You're trying to get this preclear to be able to handle energy, and perceptions are an integral portion of energy. And he's handling one or another tone band — one or another tone band of energy itself in its wavelengths. And perception, as we've covered, is just these various tone bands.

Now, don't think that this turns off in terms of symbols. When we get down to identification, we're into the field of aberration. And when we talk about aberration, we're talking about identification. We talk about identification, we're talking about direct causation. That is to say, if snakes are considered to be the same as sex, that's because snakes have caused something that is aberrative about sex. Hm. And so let's look back in the Bible and what do we find out? We open up the first page of the Bible and we found a snake in a tree and he gave wisdom. Well, we can say, "Well, this is just a symbolical interpretation of the Bible," and so on. Well, let's just get off of symbolism entirely. Let's skip it. And don't try to rationalize it out. If you find your preclear is aberrated on the subject of the second dynamic because he doesn't want to have intercourse with a snake, boy, just take it from there. Don't worry about this.

Well, now, all this is very interesting, but unless you are willing to take the key perceptions, the various perceptions of a preclear; unless you're willing to sort of stay in communication with this preclear and find out what he really is doing, make him explain this minutely without invalidating him; unless you're willing to vary this against the various functions so that you get all functions; unless you're willing to apply it to all the component parts of structure itself; you're not going to be able to handle Creative Processing. Because it's an awfully simple process — it's an awfully simple process. It's very easy to look at and it's very easy to understand but it's got a lot of parts, and unless you are willing to go over and sort out and handle these various parts and see that they're applied in certain ways, why, you're not going to get very good results with Creative Processing.

And that's one of the things that you're going to do in diagnosis rather consistently and continually, is you're going to try to stretch your imaginations in order to do Creative Processing. No, if you're sitting there with an E-Meter, you don't have to stretch your imagination any; you just take and mock up what's there. You're not trying to do a covert, circuitous route on this. The guy or the girl is aberrated on the subject of the second dynamic and you mention snakes when you're assessing objects in connection with the second dynamic and the needle goes wham! and drops another dial, wham! and drops another dial, wham! You say: "All right. Now let's get you having intercourse with a snake." And of course the needle will probably wind off the pin and the E-Meter blow up right about that point, because you wouldn't have paid attention to your gradient scale.

That's true of anything. If you were — if you were going to drive an automobile down the road, but you were not willing to take the responsibility for its steering wheel or its brake, you would not be driving an automobile down the road. Well, I want to see you in the same relationship with Creative Processing. Unless you're willing to take responsibility with the fact there are two sides to this — there's a functional side and there's a structural side — and it has all these various component parts, and that you've got to play these things one against another, why, you're just not going to be taking responsibility for Creative Processing, that's all.

But this is what you're leading toward in your processing. This is what you're leading toward, just like that. And so let's have, then, a snake with a bunch of orchids and a top hat and a cane coming to the door and ringing the doorbell. Oh, no! We can't even have a beau as a snake.

Now, one of the things that could restrain an auditor from taking full responsibility for Creative Processing would be that he isn't able to do these things himself. He wouldn't be able to conceive that anything else could happen to these gimmigahoogits and thingamabums, simply because he can't do them, so they don't have any reality to him. All right.

All right. Let's have a toothpick in a top hat. (This toothpick hasn't got any wiggle to it, you see, yet.) Now, we can get a clothesline coming to the door. And now we can get a hawser coming to the door. And now we can eventually get a top hat that has a conceptual snake under it coming to the door. And eventually, we can get a snake coming to the door in a top hat to call. See, we're up to there.

What then should we do, really, to start and do a good job with Creative Processing? Well, we ought to clear the auditor — what do you know! And everybody has known this for two and a half years. Fortunately, fortunately we're at a state of affairs where even those people we were going to bury two months ago (not mentioning any names) — people that we were ready to send flowers to and say, "Poor fellow. Well, of course, he will free all these others, and he himself will be left there, probably in no good state of preservation. He'll probably be in a bad state of decay, actually. But they make a little statue of him and there that statue will be and it will have a little sign on it saying, 'He done all he could.' " And we used to have very happy little — very happy little ceremonies about this. Used to encourage these people, saying, "Well, we'll send you flowers, and after we've left the MEST universe and everything else, we'll write occasionally and find out how you're getting along." And what do you know, even those people are getting better, and some of them are — have been exteriorized and so on.

Now, we go on just a little bit further than that and we get this snake on the other end of the telephone making an improper proposal. You get the idea? We sneak up on this one and the next thing you know, why, we have led up to the piece de resistance. Now, there, by the way, is — your preclear is just going to go there, because it so happens that back on the track, evidently, an incident of which the story in Genesis is the symbolism — the story in Genesis is the symbolism of an actual series and chain of incidents back on the track: "Wisdom — we're going to make you smart."

Now, even some of the cases — some of the lovely cases that were saying, "Yes, I'm out. Yes, I'm able to do all these things. Yes, I'm able to do all these things" — here and there this person found out they weren't. And they found out they were just being very agreeable about the whole thing, and they — kind of kidding themselves and saying, "Well, it isn't any violent process. It's just the fact you consider you're out, you see, and you're out. And you just change your location, and you change your location." And these people, too, have suddenly found that it's a process somewhat akin to, you either — if it's a question of lorries, there is either a lorry there or there isn't any lorry there. There wasn't any gradient scale of this. And it wasn't an astral body sort of an affair, where you sort of just sat there and said, "All right, thetan, now you go here. And you look there. And you wander around someplace else," and so on, and it was all good fun. "Now, let's see, I'll get a mock-up of this room. And with this mock-up of this room, I will then perceive everything in this room from various angles, and that, of course, means I'm exteriorized. Now, that's fine. That's very gradual."

Why do all people think a snake can hypnotize you? It's because snakes hypnotized you. I mean, don't ever stretch your brains on diagnosis. Just think of the shortest route through to two points and get as close to an identification as you can and you've got it. And that's true of all aberration.

I mean, no — that even those people have learned to their great incredulity that the confoundedest things happen when they're really outside.

This person is afraid of lorries. Now don't go looking for why — bumped off on a kiddie car. You're looking at gradient scales the second you do that. No, he is afraid of lorries because of lorries.

Fellow says, "My — I — I — I can't get down!"

Now, you can't find him divebombing anything in this life. He wasn't in these last two wars — and, of course, this is the only civilization in which there's ever been an airplane, and yet this person is daffy on the subject of airplanes. Just daffy. "Look at an airplane," and he says, "Oh, no!" Well, get him crashing an airplane.

And you say, "What from?"

I have to stress this at this point, is because with Creative Processing you don't discover the actual incidents. The actual incidents blow; you never pay any attention to them. The guy comes up Tone Scale on the subject, and skip it. But you'll find out there was a society maybe 92,000 years ago, and it had buildings which were remarkably similar to maybe some civilization which we've had here and which had airplanes. And they were very junky airplanes and they never got much better than that, and there were bodies and everything else.

And, "Well, I'm plastered on the ceiling!" And he — the person may have been telling you this for a long time — he was all Clear, and everything was going along fine. And then one day you ran a handy little jim-dandy method of filling in the vacant spaces with what he thought might be there, which was why he couldn't look at them. And that's quite a technique, by the way. You find out where he can't see or where he can't feel, and then you say, "Well, all right, if you can't feel in that quarter, what's there? What might be there?"

This fellow has never been in the navy and he hates naval life. And maybe that'll translate shortly and stretch across into space opera. But there's a grave possibility that it translates directly over into naval life. I mean, he is afraid of A because it's A. I mean, always make up your mind to that. So on Creative Processing, you don't have to go around any circuitous routes to discover what and why and where. You've got that in assessment. You know what it is, and you process that with Creative Processing, and then you don't address the actual incident itself.

Well, he'll say, "My Uncle Jimsonweed is probably there."

So, we'll go up to the fifth dynamic and we've got all those categories. By the way, spiders — there have been races of spiders that were sentient and all sorts of things.

And you say, "Well, all right, see him there. Now, let's have him eat a cup of coffee. Now let's put two Uncle Jimsonweeds there. And let's go through the rest of the cycle of start, change and stop." All of a sudden he can see in that quarter now. In other words, we're taking these pieces of space that have been traditionally for him filled with something dangerous, and we're handling the danger in that sector. We're just cleaning up MEST universe space.

The sixth dynamic, of course, is the MEST universe itself And boy, there you have objects! And only there you have objects such as we're accustomed to having. And there's a special kind of Creative Processing which is addressed to the sixth dynamic. You want to find out what objects in there are particularly bad.

After we've done that for a while, we're liable to get some kind of a reaction like a 16-inch gun going off.

And the seventh dynamic, of course, goes into theta. But that will go into thetans to a very marked degree. And it will go into sentient energy, as such, and other things.

It's kaboom! — "Where am I? Where — I — well, I can't see anything! I'm all of a sudden unable to perceive anything, anyplace."

And, of course, the eighth dynamic would be gods.

"Well, why don't you look behind you?"

Now, continuing this last part of this afternoon's talk. When we address all of these dynamics, we had better address them in assessment in terms of objects, and we'd better get a clean assessment. And we'd better get a very thorough assessment on this, because I've seen a couple of boys missing the boat — and I missed the boat not too long ago, which was a great shock to me. I processed a preclear for four hours without discovering the central aberration on the case, and that is almost unheard of. I discovered it in about three and a half hours after I started to process this case. And I just wasn't thinking in terms of assessment.

"Well, there's a light behind me."

Well, now, there was a good reason for this. We went over a long period there where we didn't quite know exactly or accurately what we ought to be assessing in order to do Theta Clearing. And now there's some point in an assessment. There is no point, you see, in classification, unless you have some use for what you're classifying. And the use to which a classification is put changes very markedly the classification itself.

"Well, what's the light?"

For instance, Kraepelin's enormous classification of mental aberration, psychotic conditions and so forth, was done without a specific cure or goal in mind for the condition. And so he classified it only according to those manifestations which he himself had observed. He didn't evaluate them. Therefore, the entire classification is useless to us. And I don't mean it's — part of it is useless, I mean it is useless to us. It doesn't make a bit of difference to us whether this person is a manic-depressive or a schizorunic, or anything. It just — we don't care. If this person can be lashed down — if we're going to go into this extreme — if this person is going to be lashed down, tied down or something done to them to hold them still long enough to get them into communication, we have techniques to resolve the case. But they have a case.

"Well, I — it's Earth!"

Now, you'll find yourself straining your brain on psychosis. That's the worst thing you can do, is try to be logical about the illogical. That's horrible. Here you have this fantastic case that is running around, and he says to you this and he says to you that, and you try to make up out of this what he's doing and get the computation on the case that makes him do this and so on. And you try to think it over and think it over and you think — you're working on the basis that one day you'll hit a button somehow, and something or other will happen. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about it. Get an assessment as nearly as you can on what's worrying this fellow, and then work a gradient scale to get him to put it into the environment and take it out again. You see, that includes having to find an environment to put it into first — at your lowest levels.

Now, continuing this dissertation on the subject of component parts of Creative Processing, I'm going to give you rapidly a list of the component parts of the structure — of the structure — of that which we are doing.

Now you're working on this basis — you're working on this basis: that the further a person goes down the Tone Scale, the more they're an object and the less they're energy. At first, they're just space creating energy. And then they're just — are energy. And then they go down the Tone Scale and they hit the bottom and they're an object. Well, all of — actions, and all symbolisms of objects, become objects too, and everything becomes an object. And they just sort of freeze into MEST. And you'll find out their behavior is a very MESTy behavior. You'll find out, too, that they cannot let go of anything.

Any universe can have in it, but does not have to have in it (and I stress the last), the component parts of the MEST universe. These, being stemmed directly, evidently, from theta and its potentials, are not too difficult to handle and are not too difficult to list.

Now, inability to let go means inability to let go of the aberration. So they're trying to hold on to something awful hard. Or they're trying to avoid something from hitting them awfully hard. One of these two conditions is going to exist. They're either holding on or keeping somebody else from holding on. And one of these conditions exists and that's all you're interested in. And you're working there, desire — you're working in desire, enforcement, inhibit what? Desire, force and inhibit "have."

But just because we have this series of component parts, which we best know because we best know this universe, is no reason that another universe wouldn't have a completely different set of arrangements. That you could have anything. Because you're so accustomed to think in terms of space, energy and objects in order to give you beingness, doingness and havingness, that it seems incomprehensible to most that there might be some other ones — like blitheringness. A whole universe might be built on the subject of blitheringness. And what's blitheringness? Well, blitheringness is — has to do with the fact that — of condensed wump. And if you can condense wump, you're all set. Now, you can live in that universe. It might be a very unsatisfactory universe, when inspected by somebody here on Earth, but nevertheless if this is this fellow's universe, it's his universe — that's his business.

Now, if you were to work out the interdependencies of this universe, you would find the insidious nature of every object in it was simply this: It had two labels on it. It has "have me," and "don't have me." And it also has another label on it, is "I want." And out of these, you get the cohesiveness of matter. You get positive and negative electricity. Positive says to negative, it says, "I want." And the other one says, of course, "I'm going to have." Kaboom. And we get a current flow.

So let's not make the mistake of checking the originality of a preclear.

Now, you can work that out and have a good time with it, and it's a very, very interesting mental exercise. But you should work out this one. (The electronic aspect of it is important to an electronics man, but not so important to you.) Matter is energy and has the characteristics of energy, and energy is ARC. But ARC has as its component parts three things: desire, enforce and inhibit. And to everything, you can put down desire, enforce and inhibit. So, we get the whole universe trying to stick together or blow up or break apart, all on the basis of "have." That's fascinating. You get one "have" into a psychotic's bank, and of course it short-circuits the whole bank into "have," so he has the evil with the good.

And the component parts which I'm giving you are very simple. Boy, they are simple. About as much excuse not to use all these component parts as there is to be aberrated — which is no excuse. All right.

And an object is time. Time is a slippy little abstract word that got slid in there to describe the activities of energy in space with regard to an object. And for our purposes, the object is time. And when we say "object," we might as well say "time," because it will come out to the same end in processing. And when we say "object" we might as well say "force," and when we say "time" we might as well say "force," because we're talking about energy flows with regard to an object, and if — an object is time.

We have — in this universe, space has a peculiarity. And there are three kinds of space. Three kinds of space: there's "was space," "is space" and "will be space." There are three kinds of space.

So we've got an identification — we have an identification which happens to be the top-strata single-thread identification which will unravel all these cases. So, you see, you don't have to know so much about them. Identification: You want to solve this fellow ... This fellow is worried about time. Okay, solve objects. How do you solve objects? Solve "have." What are the categories of "have"? Desire to have, enforce having and inhibit having. And what do you do? You solve time.

And how is this space formed? By postulating it exists. Very tough mechanistically. I mean, you're either going to worry over this and worry over this — but how does space get there? It's because you say it's there. And the fellow can't admit that he has this much power, because if he admitted he had this much power then he could change the future. And his mind, running on a stimulus-response mechanism, and not under control and can't be trusted, might destroy his future. So he can't permit anything to be postulated in the present, so he says, "I couldn't possibly postulate space. Space must have an actual entity — must be in existence."

Now, this thing is subject to test, workability, in processing. And it works in processing. And do you solve this by addressing it directly? No. The trouble with it is, is he has it identified. He has all these things so tightly identified that he can't separate them. So if he has all these things so tightly identified he can't separate them, you'd better start separating them immediately. And the way you start separating them is by Creative Processing, which is just to move over into another field of certainty and process over there. And he'll learn all of these mechanics all by himself, and feel them and manage to work them out on the level of postulates, and so forth, simply by addressing Creative Processes.

There's one point of improbability — high improbability. If there wasn't space — if there wasn't space, then how did anybody get you to agree to play the game of space? Now, that's an interesting one. And if there is a secret now which needs its door opened, it's that one. If there wasn't space, how could there be some space in which somebody could get you to agree to play the game of space? Well, it must have been in his space. But how could you possibly have gotten in his space? You'd have to postulate that his space existed. But how did he communicate on this line? Well, I throw that to you as though it's an unsolved problem — it isn't an unsolved problem. But it would seem so to you, perhaps, until you looked at it a little tighter.

Now, that's very tricky. That's a very tricky technique. You've got the identification which finally wound up in such a thing as the MEST universe and which finally wound up in aberration, sickness and insanity for many, and it wound up to greater or lesser inability on the part of a great many. You see, we have this — various things exist in this universe.

And you would see right away that "you must communicate by force" can be run as an engram — the concept "you must communicate by force." And it produces such strange results in the preclear and has such peculiar somatics every few preclears that "you must communicate by force" (means that you must use energy in order to communicate) must have been some effort on the part of somebody to get a much broader agreement so that we wouldn't get this fellow communicating instantaneously in no space. Because, you see, he could keep lousing everything up. He could just keep ruining everything. Because he would — he might do his creations in "will be space." And if he created in — only in a "will be space," his thought would be a pervasion, and if he said that this — and could make it stick — that this was in advance of somebody else's space, their space would go along da-da-dum-da-da-dum, everything's going fine on this space, da-da-dum-dum, all of a sudden, crash! He's run into the "will be space," and too much randomity. Somebody was serious. And I think the whole — the title of this whole play "MEST universe" could be on that line: "Somebody Was Serious."

You can't kill a man. You're not free to kill a man on Earth here. That's interesting. You can't use force, then, can you, to that degree, directed toward killing a man. You're not supposed to do that. Police object, everybody objects. And you're free to insult a man.

And the title of Dianetics could be "One Was Stubborn." All right.

Hey, now, wait a minute. Well, wait a minute. There's going to be — an aberration will happen right there on that point. What do you do about somebody who stands in front of you and insults you? It's not against the law to insult anybody, and you can't kill him. You can't even hit him. All you can do is communicate back to him again. And if you communicate back to him again, you just go into the level of insult. And it puts up an ARC ridge for you. Great. What do you know, there's no solution.

That's space. Now, that's a structural entity only when it becomes postulated as such — structural entity, space.

And from a woman's standpoint, men are too muscular to be mauled around in most cases, and so therefore they have to be inhibited in this degree. And you have to inhibit them in some fashion or another, but how can you do it if you haven't got enough strength to do it? Well, you could set up some kind of a barrier saying it isn't good to beat up women. And then you've got the problem sitting there with a man, he's got this antagonism to . . . In other words, ARC is just going to blow.

Now, we have your structural entity — and don't ever figure this as anything else but a structural entity — called motion.

And when you have objects, about the least manifestation that you'll get when you get objects this solid and things like "I can't use — I can use force this way, but I can't use it that way," on the same subject. You know, you can kill a man by insulting him. Gradient scale. Gradient scale. You can just knock him to pieces until he hasn't got any dreams, he hasn't got any hopes, he has no desires, he just has nothing and he's dead. That's slow.

Now, it's very nice in this universe. It's very orderly. There is only "in motion" — present time motion. We have gotten ruled out of existence "was in motion" and "will be in motion" as actual operations. But you see, you could make something operate in the past, but boy, is that upsetting.

Now, evidently, anything that is very, very slow is permissible under law. And anything that's fast is not permissible under law. You see, that's not rational.

We get the history books written and somebody goes back and gives Benedict Arnold a better horse or . . . This gets very upsetting.

And so you will be able to run out of preclears such things as the unsolved problem of what you do to people who yell at you, scream at you, insult you and upset you. And it puts a terrible ARC problem right in front of them. What do you do? What do you do? Well, if you had a gun you could shoot them, but if you shot them you'd get shot. And there you get your overt act–motivator enforced all up and down the track. "Don't move fast," is evidently the law of the game. "Move slow."

We are all set now, we're all agreed to the fact that King Henry had eight wives or seven wives or something of the sort, and we just shift it around and we make the motions occur so that his first wife was just wonderful.. And he never has the other six or seven. That's ruinous. It spoils the British Museum, it ruins all the textbooks, and think of this Encyclopaedia Britannica — think of that. What would happen on the pages of it. You'd have just staffs and staffs of people of the "serious department" would have to be shifting that book continually. They'd have to be running around to your house all the time and saying, "Well, what was it like? Oh, that was what it was. You've decided that. Now, you sure you've decided that and you're not going to change your mind about that?"

Well, you won't find anything very workable in the preclear's mind. They'll have to get some workability of this, until all of a sudden they realize that as a thetan they could at least shift their position or change their wavelength. And they'll suddenly realize they have a solution to it. But that's a rough problem. That's a big problem. How do you stop the gradient-scale encroachment on self of a destructive force, which destructive force is permitted and even aided and abetted by law? It makes every man an outlaw if it's carried out to its furthest length, although he was a nice fellow and he was perfectly willing to do this and that and so on.

"Well, all right, I'm not going to change my mind about that."

Now, high scale runs on a smooth enough flow for ARC to exist. But you start getting it down into problems such as those which exist in interpersonal relationships here on Earth, and whee! It just starts blowing. About the least you get is hate, and out of hate comes things like war. And then we get the solution of: "Well, let's kill everybody and make MEST out of everything. Huh, that's good. That's the way to solve the whole thing! Yeah, that's the way to solve the whole thing: let's just make MEST out of everything. Let's knock out everybody's imagination, everybody's creative impulses and control everybody. And then get everybody to work hard so they can't enjoy anything. And then let's make everything scarce. And then let's get everybody to hate everybody, and then we'll eventually have a universe." That's what's known as the conservation of energy!

"Okay. Well, we'll write that down as that — what happened."

Oh, you wonder how that does a jump. Well, boy, that does a jump but good. It says, "Now look, this stuff is so scarce that you've — at very best, very best — you've inherited it from elder gods or something of the sort, who were here before you and who left all this for you. And here you have all this universe, and you can work in this universe. And they made these beautiful planets. And of course, these beautiful planets are composed of have–don't have. And here you are, and therefore you must respect all that and treat all that, and don't make any energy of your own, use theirs. And it's all been done before, because it's all 'have,' " you see? And a guy starts going around in circles. He says, "Well, I — I know I can create something. I — I — I once could. I — I — I had some energy of my own once."

Well, the horrors of this game come under the heading "If everybody could." If everybody could, then nothing is possible, because there's so much randomity that everything just goes out to zero. So we have to limit everybody on what they could do, in order to have anything happen on a broad, general line.

But they keep saying . . . There's a funny incident on the track whereby you show up in this area and they say, "All right. Now, we don't use anything but facsimiles around here. And we don't use any live energy, you understand that. We're good people. And we don't ever use any live energy and so on. Well, now, there's a pile of facsimiles over there. Go over and get yourself some so you'll have an identity." And what do you know, you can go over and pick up a package of facsimiles.

So, actually for terms of this universe, we get current motion — current motion as the only motion. Current change in current space as the only possible.

I was processing some of these one time on a preclear, and that's where borrowings — one of the ways you've got facsimiles is by borrowing. And I was busily processing like mad on these and they were going out in all different directions. They didn't add up anyplace, until all of a sudden we hit this incident — crash! He had wound up in this particular portion of the universe where "all we used around here was facsimiles," and they were evidently all tailored and ready-made and that was all he could have for force.

But in Creative Processing, we have "was in motion," "is in," and "will be again."

So this fellow comes up to you and he says, "You're no good. You're just a dog. And after this, every time I spit, why, you're going to have to do this and do that with all those forest trees over there, and you're just a slave. Now put these bracelets on. And you're going to be fed cornmeal mush with a syringe every day, and that's the end of that and ..."

And this is one of the primary things that's been knocked out of your preclear — his inability to conceive that something will be in motion or not in motion. He's conceiving that something would be not in motion, and if he conceived thoroughly enough a future motion, you would get a present time kickback of real future motion. You'd get a present time kickback. It would change "is in motion." It would change "is in motion." And you get this "was in motion." Past, present and future, you see, are only conditions. It's a negative line. You're saying, "I have this motion. I don't want it this way. One of the ways of varying it is to stop it where it started — yesterday!" See, "All right, yesterday we stop it. It stopped yesterday."

What you are supposed to do at that moment, you see, was pick up this facsimile. And this facsimile says, "I object," or something, you see? Cute system. Don't use any force — no force, no force. And what do you find is wrong with your preclear? Why won't he take responsibility for objects? Well, he can't — hasn't any force of his own, so therefore he's got to respect all force.

Now, processing this structurally is quite interesting. You have the fellow drive a car up, for instance, and have the car destroyed simply by not having been manufactured. Yeah, you stop things by not starting them. Another way you can stop things is by having a nonexistence occur, a nonexistence which wipes out the back motion line. To get a good, thorough agreement in the MEST universe you can only have "is in motion."

And energy cannot be destroyed. That's one of the primary laws we run on. Can neither be created nor destroyed. That's true of MEST universe energy. That's true of it. But you as a preclear make up facsimiles of the energy forces which you perceive, and these all say, "Can't be created, can't be destroyed; can't be created, can't be destroyed." And what do you know, it's a lie.

Now, all this is very interesting. You find your preclears hung up on this stuff.

It's true of MEST universe energy up to a certain point. You cannot burn coal without getting the weight of the coal and so forth. And you can't suddenly turn on an electric light switch or something of the sort, and have the energy created. There's no such thing as perpetual motion in this universe. You can't start a machine running and have it run forever without feeding it fuel. It won't create energy, and so on. But ye gods, let's just consider that as a limitation of this universe. It's not a limitation of the preclear. It's not a limitation of the thetan. It doesn't happen to be true of the thetan. And it doesn't happen to be true of all energy. It just happens to be true of this energy. And if your thetan got good enough, he could probably create and destroy exact replicas of MEST universe energy. But he sure wouldn't be able to respect the elder gods anymore and do it.

And then we get item, objects. Object can be anything. And, again, we get your shift in terms of an object. You can have various structural variations. You can have an object in "was space." You can have an "object now" in a nonexisting future, you could have all sorts of strange hook-togethers of this that would not agree with this universe, but that doesn't mean they can't be done.

This MEST has the most fascinating emotional connotations connected with it. It's well up and down the Tone Scale. Every piece of MEST is. This drives a mystic mad, by the way. A mystic will look at an object and see that he can tell who's handled it, and it seems to speak to him, and he's got an emanation coming out of it and all of that sort of thing. Of course it has! It was some thetan's thoughts once, and still is. And it's there because the thetan wanted it to be there, and actually, he must still want it or it still wouldn't be there.

Now, in this universe, we have, horribly enough, "object now," and oh, is that limiting! We have "object now." We just have a "now object" and we have a "now motion." Well, that is what would normally ensue if you had agreement all over the place. Everybody was agreeing, agreeing, agreeing — you'd eventually get it broken down till we had an "object now." You don't have an "object then." That's so, I guess, people can tell you, "Well, if you don't take care of it, you won't have it" — and then eventually you won't have it. How if you do this and do that, this other condition will result and so on. But that's a very narrow band, an "object now."

And where's he now? He's probably got a ridge on him the size of Earth. Wouldn't that be interesting? Wouldn't it be interesting if every planet we had was alive, really — had its own thetan or had several thetans and so on, and they had just played the game of "have" and "have not," and "have" and "have not," until here they are and all they can do is travel around suns and maybe some of the suns just sort of — are just decombusting gobs of "have" and "have not" and so on. Wouldn't that be amusing? I think it would be an awfully good joke on the thetans that got into the rat race and couldn't get out of it.

For instance, there's no reason why you should have a small Buddha on your mantelpiece which you found came out of some old temple and at one time had a valuable ruby in its brow, and there it sits all battered and scarred up and so on. Why not just put some "then space" and a "then object" there? Why not put the Buddha there as it was? Not have it exist there, but have it there as it existed. Be quite pretty — all you'd have to do is just shift your postulate a little bit if you wanted to see the Buddha on the mantelpiece. Very simple. Effective, postulatewise. But you would have a Buddha who was in beautiful condition and who would have a gorgeous stone in his head, even though the stone was now set in Mrs. Gotbucks's bracelet or something. That would be beside the point. You would have a "then object."

Yeah, "respect the elder gods" is the same as conservation of energy. It runs, essentially, "this energy isn't yours." You find most people believe that all the energy they get comes out of food. Yeah, they think, somehow or other by some necromancy, this low-wave combustion fuel converts and so forth and that's how they get their energy. That's very fortunately not true. That's where the body gets its energy, because it's an engine.

But, gee, you'd certainly knock out this whole rule of scarcity. Scarcity is the main thing in the MEST universe, and you'd have then — nobody would have had to have found the planet and mined a mine and gotten a lot of Indians killed in the process and worked and slaved and had this emerald taken over the mountains by muleback and fallen down cliffs and ... See the randomity you knock out? And it wouldn't be stolen here and parked there and it wouldn't have any value at all if you had a "then object." What do you mean, value? It wouldn't have the power of increasing wantingness — that's value. It wouldn't have the power of increasing wantingness if everybody could have all these things they wanted to.

Now, in doing an assessment of the case, we have to know the component parts of the case and we have to know the function of these. And we take the function apart and we find that the function of theta runs into be (space), do (energy), which results in a have. And it becomes a now-have here. Well, the function of it, then, is that any object of any of the dynamics has a "be" to it. It's got a space. It's got a doingness to it of one kind or another — even if it's apparent static, it has a doingness — and it has a "have" characteristic.

So we set an arbitrary value simply by imposing a scarcity and a oneness on a something.

Earth is saying "have me" and "don't have me," practically in the same breath. Now, to the degree to which it says "have me" is the degree to its endurance. It endures, in other words, as long as there is desire, enforce and inhibit as postulates sitting behind it. So you would have to overcome, to destroy a piece of matter, an awful big piece of endurance. You know, matter is as hard to convert as it is intended to endure. Try to do something with the pyramids. They just don't walk around very good. But they were sure intended to endure. So we have this degree of havingness.

This oneness is a great postulate. I imagine the boy who thought this up was much more proud than I am in undoing it. I imagine he went around for days and weeks, and probably had everybody cheering and huzzahing — he'd finally worked this thing out, and he got it down to a point where objects could have value.

Now, any object has this characteristic. And any object, according to this universe's laws, is trying to go through the big cycle — the major cycle of action. And a cycle of action is intended to wind up from creation with destruction. And in this universe, it's supposed to be not destruction at all, but conversion. See, you'll find out it's very easy for your preclear to convert these things out of existence, and rather difficult for him to just pow! them out of existence. Of course, you get him to converting them out of existence easily and varying them, and doing other things with them, and converting them into flowers and doing all sorts of things like this, that's all very well. But as long as you have to, you should process him on this cycle of action, but as long as you are doing it, you're agreeing with the MEST universe.

And the way you got an object to have value — see, it was twice as hard to work this thing out as it is to solve it. The way you'd have a — put value on an object would be to have only objects in present time, and this would be an enormously valu.... . Then you'd have to have a police force to go around and enforce it in all directions, and anybody who was found to be getting a superfluity of objects which had no past . . . "Any object must have a past. An object must have a past and exist only in the present." I can see these as proclamations and posters on the sides of buildings and things like that. People being arrested and so forth for wearing a "then object."

That cycle of action is a fascinating thing, but it's the cycle of havingness. Otherwise it wouldn't have any time. A fellow creates something and he wants to have that and then he wants to have it a little better. Have-have-have-have, and then do a flip with it and change it to something else because he's tired of it, something of this sort. And then, in spite of the fact that he tries to change it and tries to change it, it decays-decays-decays-decays-decays and it's gone. Now that's a cycle of action.

And another fellow, he's taken up smoking and he hasn't got a match, so he lights his pipe with a "then motion." And he says, "Well let's see, I had a match last Tuesday. Okay, which, pooh!" And you can just see what the police would do. They would say, "This fellow lit a pipe with a match he had last Tuesday and therefore the fine he's fined twenty postulates," or something of the sort.

Now, assessment, then, would have to address itself not to just the blunt statement of "Can you create and can you destroy?" but would have to address itself to "What are you willing to create, conserve, alter?" When you get to that one, it's very funny. You'll find a lot of things he is not willing to alter. He likes a lot of things. He doesn't want to alter the British Museum or something. He just doesn't want to alter that.

It must have been terrible trying to work this universe in, because somebody was serious.

"Well, change it around."

All right. So we have, then, these objects. But what do you know? What do you know — there's another problem that comes up in that. There wasn't any time with regard to objects as long as there was a superfluity of objects. So you actually didn't get much in terms of "then motion" and there was no real reason at all for "then space" or "was space" or "will be space" unless you had a scarcity of objects. So there wasn't any time. Nobody was aware of any time as existing as an arbitrary factor at all, until the object was suddenly declared to be outlawed — I mean, the "then object" and the "will be object" were — became outlawed objects.

"Can't."

Well, everybody had to go around and really work and figure and figure and figure to find out how do you make an object a "then object," so that they could then and only then — naturally, you see — not have one.

"Well, make a stable out of it."

That's the general trick of all these postulates is you had to figure out something that wasn't, and then prove to people it was, in order to get something in, to have it ruled out.

"Oh-h-h!"

You see, you have to have drunken driving before you have a law against drunken driving. You couldn't go down here and pass a law in any town council or anything else of the sort against drunken driving if there had never been a case of drunken driving.

"Well, I tell you what. Put a sign on it. See the sign on the front of it, says 'British Museum.' All right, now have the sign say The British Museum." Well, he'll do that. Now, you're on your way. You see? Gradient scale. You've gotten that sign changed.

You had to prove — you'd have to prove to the town council that drunken driving was done; it was done, and that it shouldn't be done, then rule it out.

"Now, let's change the thing by making it more British Museum." Let's get it to grow. "More British Museum. And now let's get it antiqued a little bit." He doesn't mind that too much, because it's full of antiques. "And let's just get it antiqued and a little bit more antiqued and a little bit more antiqued," until all of a sudden we say, "Well, that's so antiqued, maybe we'd better build a brand-new British Museum. Let's build a big one this. time. Let's build a brand-new one."

Well now, some fellow very shifty-footed would not be above going out and hiring a few people to do some drunken driving to put his point through.

You made him create the British Museum. It's not very many seconds in processing beyond that point where you say, "All right. Now blow it up." Or "All right. Now have the ground open. Now put it in. Now bury it." And he will. And oddly enough, he has changed his aspect toward the British Museum. Hmm.

He would invent illusions which would be dangerous illusions in order to have them avoided. You see? Now that is the operation which has taken place more than anything else.

This fellow is engaged in a worship of antiquity. You'll find that worship of antiquity scattered all over the place. He won't own anything unless it's old. And here he is gumping around with this body that's practically on crutches and it's all seamed and lined and everything else and — he's got an old body. You find out this was his — one of his main ambitions was to have an old body. Nyaah! So he gets young again.

A fellow dreamed up something and, in order to increase his own worth or his own value of his own objects and fight around with those, then he would discover why it was that these objects were more valuable and why somebody else's objects were less valuable, and he would invent something like "There is a 'now object.' Well, all of your objects are just beautiful and we like your objects and everything of the sort, but a lot of them are 'then objects.'"

Now, what do you want to — how do you want to change your preclear? Now, that's very much the important point there, you see?

And the fellow would pick up this little Buddha and he'd say, "Well, you know, what do you mean it's a 'then'?"

All right.

"Well," the fellow would say, "look. I'll prove it to you. It existed. Didn't it?" The fellow would say, "It what?"

Start, stop and change is, of course, be, have and do. Be, do and have: start, stop, change. "Have" is stop. When he has accumulated this fortune, he will retire — "have" is stop. When I have accomplished this goal, I will not do it again — "have" is stop.

And you'd say, "Well, you had it. You had it and you don't have it now." And the fellow looks in his hand and it's gone!

You wonder why your preclear is stuck on the time track? He's stuck for two reasons: he's stuck in a desire to have which has been fulfilled, or he's trying to keep from having a facsimile which is maybe hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. If you try hard enough to keep from having something, you put it right there in present time, because you say there's no time factor with — next to it. But if you say it's an accomplished "have," there's no time factor with that either, because it's just "endure forever."

And he says, "You see? It was a 'then object.' "

And you wonder why this fellow has this facsimile? Well, he did a good job once. Yes, he did a good job. Yep, he accumulated all this stuff and so on in there — did a good job. That self-complacency expresses itself in inaction. You find his time factors are messed up, that he really isn't happy about a lot of other things.

This is another method of stealing. See, you can steal that way. You can say, "Well, the reason why — the reason why you just suddenly lost those twenty Buddhas and so forth, the reason why — and have none now, is they were all 'then Buddhas.' "

Now, where it comes, then, to start, stop and change you have your cycle of action: create, conserve, alter, destroy — you've got that same cycle going in there. And you've got your "have" would be the same as stop. You've got your "do," the same as change. And in order to create you've got to have space, so your start is, of course, "be." You must postulate a beingness before you get a gettingness. And you've got to have a gettingness before you have a havingness.

And the fellow says, "They were what?"

Well, I wrote all that down once here: "That portion of the static of life concerned with the life organism of the physical universe is concerned wholly with motion." Believe me, it sure is! And motion has its conditions: space, change and have. All right.

And he says, "Well, you had them, didn't you?"

We've got Axiom 20: "Lambda creates, conserves, maintains, requires, destroys, changes, occupies, groups and disperses MEST." You get that? So that's your cycle. It's got to be able to do all those things, and you just pick this up out of some of the old axioms here and put it down in a new place. You got to create objects, conserve objects, maintain objects, require objects, destroy objects, change objects, occupy, group and disperse. There are probably a lot more of them, because you've departed there from a simplicity and gone into a complexity which is derived from the same thing.

And the fellow says, "Well, yes."

Now, objects, you see — givingness is creating another desire so that one can give, so you can give and receive and have objects. What are you willing to give? Whee! You'll find out your preclear is just completely fouled up all over the darn Tone Scale on the subject of not wanting to give anything, really. And you start it — giving them away. All right, let's just — starting him in Creative Processing, let's have him make up a — all right, let's have him make up a body and give it to somebody who hasn't got a good body. Okay. Now, let's have him give this. Now, let's have him give that. And he'll find out all of a sudden he hasn't got any willingness to give these things away. He'll start it in fun, but then it started to get serious, and it's amazing that "parting with" and processing are practically the same thing. You're asking your preclear to part with something, and that's something he desires. You're asking him to do something he doesn't want to do. It occurs to him that you're asking him to give up time, you're asking him to cease to be, if you start really nailing in toward the center of this case.

"Well, you don't have them now, do you?"

The whole truth of the matter is, is what's keeping him from being is time. Time's arbitrary command value over him is the arbitrary command value objects have over him. Look at the command level of the body over him. That's one of the first things you're trying to solve in processing: you want to exteriorize this person as fast as possible and get him away from these banks and get him out as himself That's as fast as possible, and process him from there on, because he can change postulates so much easier.

"No."

Well, what's going to block it? The command value of the object is the command value of persistence. He wants to survive. The body is an object and the body survives, and even though it survives just for a short time, you're asking him to give up a body? Oh, no!

"Well, they were 'then Buddhas.' It's all very simple, and there you are."

No. You've got to have him give something away first, and give something else away, and then give something else away and give something else away and have him start giving bodies away. And then have him start creating bodies so he can give them away. And then he can create bodies and give them away to people who are going to take them out and destroy them. And make him put a lot of care into just exactly how good this body is that he's going to give to somebody, and then this person goes and destroys it. And you start that, you can have him cut the body up into bits, get his own body mocked up and chop it up into bits and all that sort of thing, and the next thing you know, why, you've got him loosened up on the subject of what? This terrific thirst for time.

It's no wonder businessmen go daffy in their old age, because they're actually jumping around on an agreed-upon logical plan with regard to objects which really doesn't have any actuality in existence. They go around proving to somebody that something is scarce and therefore has a greater value. And they dramatize, dramatize, dramatize, dramatize on that same line — dramatize, dramatize. And it gets them. They'll begin to think after a while that ... You finally get this businessman and he started out in his youth, the best thing to do was you took this warehouse of stuff, and you got it for a penny apiece and you sold it for a penny and a farthing. And you moved it all out, and you got another warehouse full of stuff and you moved that all out, and you moved other things out.

And as he goes on in life, he doesn't do that anymore. He gets warehouses full of stuff. Period. Period. He gets warehouses full of stuff. There is no motion to this and he just accumulates, accumulates.

Now he's got to figure all sorts of ways to accumulate, so the way he accumulates is to devaluate stuff so that he can pick it up and put it in the warehouse and then consider it valuable. But by this time he's said, "It's not valuable. It's not valuable. It's not valuable." And yet when he gets it himself he says, "Now it is valuable, now it is valuable, now it is valuable." And he'll go screwy on that one too. He'll eventually realize that nothing in the warehouse is worth anything. Why? Because he labeled it so before it went into the warehouse.

And you could take a businessman to pieces this way, and you'd find out that he was — he had been driving himself very daffy. And his concept of values had been in a continuous state of flux. And he's got an identification, now, of values, so that he doesn't know whether his wife's fur coat is more important than the factory or what. Anything can happen to him.

Well, now, that actually is your basic structure — your basic structure.

In this universe, you've got a "now object," but you'll have to use in Creative Processing "will be objects" and "had objects."

You see, you would have to say, "Now get something you had." And the fellow said, "You mean I don't have it now?"

"That's right. Get something you had."

"All right. I had a Rolls-Royce yesterday."

"That's fine. That's fine. Now, roll it up here into the present. All right, now let's have a Rolls-Royce twenty years ago. Now let's not have it exist until tomorrow."

Most of your preclears will — their wits start to sort of — they feel kind of like they're caving in right at that point. They moan, "How can I possibly do this?"

And all of a sudden they learn a tremendous lesson. "All I've got to do is say so, and it is so." And at that moment they will break agreement tremendously with the heavy agreement line they're on. They just break agreement all over the place. They can handily say, all of a sudden, and with perfect calm and without any doubt about the ethics of the thing — saying, "Well, yesterday I had a million dollars. I had a million dollars and didn't lose it, but it was a 'then million dollars.' I had a million dollars and didn't lose it, and I don't have it now, but it didn't disappear."

It's impossible. Well, if he can just work around with that you'll find all sorts of things blowing into view.

You're breaking up his logical line which has gotten him into a state of identifying. It's no longer in a state of similarity; it's in a state of identification all along the line. Now you just have to break it up to bits with Creative Processing until you get differences. And that's what our next step is here.

Now, this isn't all structure. I'm going to come back to structure in a moment.

You've got differences, similarities and identities.

And as you teach a guy to handle this, as with Creative Processing, he gets to a point where he can make postulates and that is the seniorest type of thinking there is: Postulate Processing.

There's no sense in undoing postulates which he made on this time track, because there is no reason why he has to undo his postulate which exists today by undoing the postulate he made yesterday, because he didn't make it yesterday, he made it now.

A postulate is not senior, actually, just because it occurred yesterday. It's just because of this object mess-up, with "then objects" and "will be objects" being ruled out, that postulates become very valuable.

Because most of your preclears (mark this down) treat thought as an object. They are so bad off.

Now, if you want to see an extreme case of this, try and process a psychotic. And you say, "All right. Give me the postulate." And they'll actually sort of start fishing in their pockets or something.

And you say, "All right, now, what's the value of the word?" And they'll think it over for a little while — you can just see them. Get them to give you something. Get them to part with an object. They can't part with an object, and they can't part with a word and they can't part with an aberration. They're all the same to them. A postulate is an object, a thought is an object, a word is an object.

Did you ever tell a joke to somebody and have him sit there for ten or fifteen minutes and keep coming back to it all the time, and puzzled as to what exactly your words meant? Well, he can't part with it. He's got to hold it, and that's his excuse, to hold — he's got an object. Words are objects; words are objects to the very aberrated.

And as a person becomes less and less aberrated, words are less and less objects. But they are to some slight degree a symbol and an object way up the Tone Scale.

So you have, with a postulate, a "then object." And if a "then object" ever existed, it exists now, or an incident of its destruction exists between then and now. You get the idea?

Then, it must — if there was a "then object," it exists today or it was destroyed. This is the agreement of the universe. To have a "then object" which was not destroyed, not existing today, is something a person can't accept.

So, if a postulate is an object, they have a "then object" — they didn't destroy it, so it must be in full force today. And what is "then" is senior, then, to what is "now." So their postulates are all over the track and every one of them in full force.

And he has a postulate — he says, "Black is bad." And he's got a postulate, "White is bad." Now, he tries to make a postulate — he sees a film and it has a black heroine. And he says, "Gee, she was a nice girl. Now, let's see — well, black — black just as a color isn't so bad ..." Now he can't make it stick. He is very well aware of the fact that he has made a postulate that "black is bad." Now he's got to make a postulate "black is good." He can't make a postulate "black is good" because the senior postulate has already been made merely because it was an earlier postulate and it's an object.

So when you give him processing, he is willing to admit, then, the postulate was destroyed, because the ritual of processing destroys the postulate that he made before. Now he can make a new postulate. It's actually just pure balderdash changing a postulate in yesterday. There isn't any reason why a "then object" can't exist then and not exist now without having been destroyed. It assaults one's logic. One keeps saying, "What happened to it?" and so forth. And you say, "Well, nothing happened to it. It just doesn't exist." And the fellow — "But that's impossible," and so on. He's trying to connect himself with the past with this chain of similarities I've explained to you as logic. He's trying to connect himself all the way through with this similar stream of consciousness — and that's a stimulus-response mechanism. He's asking things to be automatic. He wants the environment to run him. And so he gets all connected up to the past.

You could just work with him a little while and get a flexibility of mind to where he could say, "Oh, all right, a 'then object' can exist without existing now, without an interim destruction." You're liable to get — boom! — all the postulates on the track are invalid. The second that he realizes there have been all kinds of postulates made about this and that, and they don't necessarily have to exist now because objects don't have to exist now — why then, theoretically, you could get a disconnection from one's past. And what you're trying to do is disconnect your preclear from the liabilities of his own past. Well, that's the way to do it.

So, we have this cycle, an enforced cycle of action.

Now, the anatomy of the cycle of action is the next thing here. He believes that things have to go from here, "creation," over to here, "destruction." And that anything that starts in on the cycle has to finish the cycle, and you get that compulsion. That compulsion is a command. It says, "Survive!" It says everything has to survive and go through this cycle in order to be valid, and nothing is valid unless it has gone through this cycle. So you get the cycle of action not as a necessary part of a universe of the preclear's, not as a necessary part of his thinking process, but something he continually witnesses, something which he knows is an integral part of his beingness. And he thinks this is logical, and actually logic is this cycle of action.

Now, a cell goes into that cycle of action. A car goes into that cycle of action. A body goes into that cycle of action. And that is the unit cycle of action of the organism: create, growth, conserve, decay, death. And that, of course, he thinks then, has to be the cycle of the object. .

Well, you could give him a mock-up having an old man live backwards and die because he was born, and disappear because he was born. There's no reason why he can't run this cycle backwards.

Merlin, by the way, is supposed to be living backwards. Merlin is probably alive today and if it's running the way Merlin said it was going to run, he is getting younger and younger. And there isn't any reason why this couldn't take place, you see?

Actually, you could start your whole life cycle backwards if you wanted to. You could take yourself as you are now, and you could start running yourself earlier as time goes later, but look at the command value you'd have to take out of time.

Well, to take a command value out of time, all you have to do is take a command value out of objects. And if you take the command value out of objects, you can have yourself "un-age" with great ease.

You could say, "Now, let's see. Let's see. According to the dates in the MEST universe, I am ninety-seven. Now, let's see. I think I'll un-age till forty and that will take fifty-seven years. And fifty-seven years — because of the ratio of desire and objects and so forth — will be at two o'clock this afternoon. Fifty-seven years will have elapsed at two o'clock this afternoon, that will make me forty. At two o'clock this afternoon I'll be forty. Good." And actually make it stick.

Now, there's no reason why you can't do that.

There isn't any reason, too, why you have to have everything manufactured for you, because that makes time manufactured for you.