I want to talk to you now some more about the Axioms.

It is a remarkable thing that life itself can be codified in terms of Axioms. It has not been done before. The first time it was even attempted was in 1951 when I wrote the Logics and Axioms, which I did simply to give an alignment to thought itself. And as a matter of fact copies of these Axioms were sent over to Europe and in 1953 I found them in Vienna fully translated into German. It's quite remarkable. Over there they were terribly impressed simply because it had not been done before. Nobody had before codified life to this degree and nobody had codified psychotherapy. And they were not impressed with whether the Axioms were right or wrong, it was only that nobody had done it before. In these Scientology Axioms we're not quite doing the same thing. Those 1951 Axioms of Dianetics were quite complicated and these fifty Axioms we now have are nowhere near as lengthy, but their reach is greater and they pack a great deal more punch.

We've gotten up to the Axioms of affinity, reality and communication. These subjects are very inherent. For instance, in Scientology they're terrifically useful. If you want to find where a communication line is breaking, why, look for some affinity that is off. And if you want to audit somebody who is having a rather rough time, then you'd better audit them with considerable affinity. If you demonstrate enough affinity one way or the other, why, you will be able to overcome their communication reluctance.

We come here to the interesting subject of a proof of ultimate truth. If we have reached an ultimate truth, then we have reached an ultimate solution, and who would ever suspect, really, that an ultimate truth or an ultimate solution could be subjected to mechanical proof. We have done just that. We have discovered the phenomenon of a perfect duplicate.

But it's very important that you understand that all these things are basically a consideration. We have to consider that they exist before they exist.

Axiom Twenty: Bringing the static to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any existence or part thereof.

Now, we are covering on this track the considerations which man has composited into an existence. Man has decided that certain things existed, and so he has agreed upon this very thoroughly, and so they exist for all of men.

If you can bring someone to make a perfect duplicate of anything it will vanish. We have a perfect duplicate clearly defined:

And if he had never decided upon these various existences, why, they wouldn't exist. So we look at this affinity and we find out that – we look at reality and communication, too – and we find out that we are looking at a long series of considerations which man holds in common. These are not considerations simply because we in Scientology consider that they exist. We can do enormously important things with this information, this codification, organization of this universe. It's been going on for about seventy-six trillion years, and to be able to bust it loose and knock it apart is quite an interesting feat.

A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space, in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy. (And we could append to that "the considerations which go along with it", because it couldn't be anything but considerations.)

All right. Let's look over affinity and see that the first thing about affinity is the fact it's consideration. And then that in the ARC triangle, the distance of communication is represented by the affinity to a marked degree, and the type of particle – the distance and the type of particle. For instance, they say absence makes the heart grow fonder. That happens to be a lie, but you could postulate it that way and make it come out. And you could also say that if you get two people far enough apart, why, they are liable to get mad at each other. The main reason you have wars is because Russia is a safe distance from the United States. It can afford to get mad.

And: This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes vanishment of the object.

Did you ever notice that somebody was very furious at you as long as they were on the other end of a telephone line, but when you went around to see them they weren't mad at you anymore? Well, that's an inversion on the situation. You closed the distance and so you achieved a better affinity.

If you ask somebody to simply make a perfect duplicate of, for instance, a vase, just exactly where it sits, it will begin to fade out on him, and he can do that to almost anything.

Many ways that you could handle this, but again, basically, it's a consideration.

Why doesn't it fade for somebody else? This is quite remarkable. Everything in this universe is displaced or misplaced. When we talk about a lie, we really don't mean that simply changing the position of something is a lie. We have to alter the consideration regarding it to make a lie. It isn't really a lie that everything is so scrambled in this universe. It is scrambled. Just in the last moment or two several cosmic rays went through your body. Those were particles which emanated from somewhere and they arrived where you are – they had been en route for a hundred million years. To get one of those cosmic rays to vanish we would have to find its point of creation, and we would have to make a duplicate of that ray at the moment of its creation, and then we would have to make a duplicate of having done so. At that instant that cosmic ray would vanish.

Now, let's look at reality. And we find out that reality, in number 26: Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence.

This is very interesting to the physicist, it's very interesting to almost anybody, and it is demonstrable. Yon can do this. I asked an auditor one afternoon simply to "look to the garage wall over there" and to choose a very small area, and "find the atoms and molecules in the wall there, and put an attention unit" – a remote viewpoint – "next to each one, and follow it immediately back to where it had been created." He was leaning on the fender of the car, and he did this – and he came off the fender of that car as though he had been shot. The object itself, this tiny portion of the object, had started to disintegrate. And he rushed over to it to hold it in place with his hands! Why doesn't the whole universe vanish? Well, probably on the very site of this building there was another building once and that building has been broken up and the bricks have been moved and part of it is out there in the street, and part of it is still in the ground and part of it – maybe some brick dust – got on somebody's suitcase who went to World War II, and part of it's in Germany and it's spread all over the place, and here are all these cosmic waves and rays going all over the universe – and to get each one of those at its moment of creation in the time and space, and to make a perfect duplicate of all this, would be quite a job. It's not an impossible job. It requires an ability to span attention. You would get a physical object to disappear so thoroughly that everybody else would know it was gone.

The whole subject of reality is a baffling one to people who do not add into reality, affinity and communication. If you simply said, "Well, this is reality, and that's your reality, that's somebody else's reality," and so forth, why, you would just be talking, that's all.

You see that it isn't true that an object sitting before you at this moment, or your chair, has always been in that position. Nor is it true that the materials in that chair have always been in that position, nor is it true that the atoms which made up the chair in raw material form were always in that particular ore bed or in that particular tree. So you see it's quite complex. This universe is scrambled.

In the first place, a person can postulate anything he wants to postulate, and he has a personal reality. He could simply say," It's there," and he'd say, "That's real."

That doesn't mean you can't make it vanish, however.

Or he can have a facsimile appear which is more real to him than the actual universe around him. Many times you'll run into a psychotic and his facsimiles are far, far more real than anything else.

As we can produce this phenomenon, we know we have an ultimate solution. The perfect duplicate was the little latch string hanging out that opened the door to an ultimate truth.

Well, these are two conditions which we don't recognize as reality. In the one hand, the person merely postulates reality and so that's his reality, and other people don't agree upon it, and the other part is also a not-agreed-upon reality, and that is this reality: it's an otherdetermined reality. Somebody has given him a facsimile and has really impressed him with it and so this looks more real to him than reality. In other words, we have complete selfdetermined postulation and complete other-determined postulations, neither one of which are what we consider to be reality.

Well, what would an ultimate truth be? An ultimate truth is a static, and an ultimate solution is a static. In other words, an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution is nothing. Get the As-is-ness of any problem, make a perfect duplicate of any problem, and the problem will disappear. You can subject that easily to proof. So if you can make a problem disappear by simply getting its As-is-ness, then you've got the solution to all problems, or the ultimate solution. Well, the MEST universe itself is just a problem, and so if you could get its As-is-ness, it would disappear. It would disappear for everybody. Well, let's study that one, and get that very well and get what the definition is there, in the Axioms and Definitions. This is the total solution, by the way, to the vanishment of engrams – what we were handling in Dianetics. The vanishment of ridges, of all energy forms and manifestations, all these can simply be accomplished by making perfect duplicates of them. That doesn't mean that you should now make nothing out of everything or get your preclear to try to make nothing out of everything, but that it just can be done.

Those are extremes. What we consider to be reality is in the mean of this. That is, what do we agree is real? You and I agree there's a wall there, well, there's a wall there. And we agree there's a ceiling there, there's a ceiling there. And we agree that you're sitting there and I'm sitting here, well, that's real. That's simply because you and I safely have agreed that that takes place.

Axiom Twenty-One: Understanding is composed of affinity, reality and communication.

Now, if somebody else came in the room and looked at all you people sitting down and said," What are you all standing up for?" why, you'd have rather a tendency to believe there was something wrong with this fellow.

We understand understanding a bit better when we see that it is simply the ability to get the As-is-ness of something. For example we could say "I don't quite understand this car.

And as a matter of fact, do you know what we do? We use natural selection to take out of the lineup people who have too much personal reality and too much other-determined reality. If this person walked in and said, "What are all you people standing up for?" why, if he did that consistently about a number of things and said," What is that lion doing walking on the ceiling?" we would have a tendency to lock him up. In other words, we would move him away from survival and he wouldn't procreate. In other words, we'd move these people actually out of the… at least the genetic lineup (the insane).

Don't quite understand what's wrong with it. It just won't start." And we walk around it and look at it and then we find out that we haven't turned on the key. And we turn on the key.

Now, here we have in reality a very embracing subject, because reality is actually isness. Reality is isness and unreality is not-isness (our effort trying to make something disappear with energy). And, by the way, that's very amusing, trying to make things disappear with energy. They used to talk in the Bible and other places, and they used to say, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," and somebody said once, "Turn the other cheek." And what these people were actually saying was fighting force with force does not bring about anything like a perfect duplicate. Only they maybe didn't know they were saying that. Using force to fight force brings about an unreality. But, oddly enough, using force to build force brings about a reality.

We've understood it, in other words. We have unmocked the fact that the key was not turned on and we have turned on the key (which actually is practicing Alter-is-ness). If we walked around a car and said "I don't understand what this object is… I don't understand what this object is… AH! it's a car!" We would feel immediately relieved. We'd feel a lot better about the thing, but if we were to get its total As-is-ness there would just be a hole sitting there.

Isness is a continuous alteration; a continuous alteration gives us an isness. A notisness (saying it doesn't exist) gives us an unreality. So there we have reality and unreality defined.

So understanding is As-is-ness and understanding in its entirety would be a Static and so we have the fact that Life knows basically everything there is to know before it gets complicated with lots of data, merely because it can postulate all the data it knows. All knowingness is inherent in the static itself. A thetan who is in good shape knows everything there is to know. He knows past, present and future. He knows everything. This doesn't mean he knows data. This merely means that he can As-is anything and if he can As-is anything believe me he can understand it.

Now, how could you use this principle of reality in auditing? Do you know reality is basically an agreement? A mechanical agreement is for two forms to be exactly similar; one's a copy of the other form. That's mimicry. And we learn by mimicry.

Man's salvation I've said several times depends upon his recognition of his brotherhood with the universe. Well let's misinterpret that just a little bit and say Man's salvation – if you want to save him from the universe – would depend upon his ability to make an As-isness of the physical universe at which moment he wouldn't have a universe, and this would be total understanding.

If you go in and find a psychotic prancing up and down a sanitarium room and you simply start prancing up and down the sanitarium room exactly like he's doing, do you know that he'll stop and talk to you?

Understanding has three parts: Affinity Reality and Communication.

Well, maybe he hasn't talked to anybody for ages, but certainly, he now has an agreedupon reality. And having agreed upon reality, he can get into communication with it. In other words, mimicry is the lowest level of entrance of a case and is a very good thing for an auditor to know.

You can actually compose from ARC all the mathematics there are. You can combine ARC into mathematics. You can accomplish anything with ARC that you want to do.

Now, what we know then as reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence. All right.

Symbolic Logic, even calculus, could be extrapolated from ARC.

Now, let's take up number 27: An actuality can exist for one individually, but when it is agreed with by others it can be said to be a reality.

Affinity depends upon reality and communication. Reality depends upon affinity and communication. Communication depends upon affinity and reality. If you don't believe this try to communicate sometime with somebody without any affinity at all. Get real mad at somebody, and then try to communicate with him. You won't. Try to get somebody to be reasonable when he is very angry and you'll find out that his reality is very poor. He cannot conceive of the situation. He'll give you some of the weirdest things. There is no liar lying like an angry man.

And let's find out that those things which have become solid to us, which have become very fixed to us, must have been agreed upon by others.

If you raise somebody's affinity you will raise his reality and communication. If you raise somebody's reality, you'll raise his affinity and communication. And the keynote of this triangle happens to be communication. Communication is more important than either affinity or reality.

And we get something very interesting there. The anatomy of reality is contained in isness, which is composed of as-isness and alter-isness. An isness is an apparency, not an actuality. The actuality is as-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency.

Axiom Twenty-Two: The practice of not-is-ness reduces understanding.

Well, this agreement is part of the as-isness of this whole universe. If you ask somebody "Give me some things that you wouldn't mind agreeing with," "Give me something that you could do that other people would agree with," and so on, we'll notice some change in the case. Why? We're changing his level of agreement.

In other words, something is there, and we say it's not there.

He is actually bound by certain considerations. And until he postulates otherwise, he will continue with that agreement. This is how we fix somebody into something.

Someone is driving down the road like mad and there's an enormous boulder lying in the middle of the road, and almost anybody, just before the crash, will say the boulder's not there. And by golly it's there. And this makes him feel he's a weak thetan. He failed. The funny part of it is that if here were to immediately 'As-is – a boulder in the road', instead of denying it's there, and if he could make this a perfect duplicate, the boulder would disappear.

The whole of existence, actually, is run very much like an hypnotic trance.

He doesn't do it that way. He sort of puts some energy up and pushes against the boulder, and says, "It's not there, it's not there. I deny it." Well, he'll have a mighty thin understanding of the whole thing.

How do you hypnotize somebody? Well, you get them to agree with you. And then you get them to agree with you a little bit more. Oh, most people think that it's done by watches or something or other. It's not done that way. It's done in a very interesting way.

He doesn't want to communicate with it, so he says it's not there. He doesn't want to have any affinity for it at all, so he says it's not there. And believe me his reality cuts down.

I don't know much about Western hypnotism. I myself studied hypnotism in the East, and when I came over to America again, I wondered what on earth this strange practice was that these people were practicing and calling hypnotism. Because it wasn't even vaguely what is taught in the East to induce trances. It's quite remarkable that hypnotism is inducible on small or large groups.

The practice of Not-is-ness reduces understanding, and that is what Man is doing constantly.

Now, the worse off a group is, which is to say, the less communication they have, actually, the more communication can be forced upon them. And you can get a form of hypnotism there. But the interesting thing is that they must have been prepared by an enormous number of agreements before they got into that state. In other words, somebody else prepared them, so they didn't care who they agreed with after a while.

He's trying to avow that something that isn't there is there, and he's trying to avow that something that is there isn't there, and between these two things, giving it no As-is-ness at all or new postulates of any kind, he's having quite a time of it.

Anybody in a uniform walks up to a soldier, if that uniform has a higher rank on, the soldier will obey them. Well, this is a form of hypnotism.

Axiom Twenty-Three: The static has the capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC.

Now, you can take an audience and simply get them to agree with you. And you get them to agree more and more and more and more and more, and the next thing you know… And, by the way, when I say "agree with you," I mean you could get them to agree first that you were simply standing there.

Here we have a condition of existence which is As-is. That would be total knowingness. Well, if we had somebody who could say "As-is" to everything, and trace all parts of everything back to their original time, location, and simply got them as they really were, we of course would have nothing left but a Static. We would have zero. We wouldn't even have space.

And then the next thing that you could get them to agree to is the fact that they were listening to you. And then you would give them a few little things on which they would agree with. And the next thing you know, you could tell them that the world was on fire and the audience would rush out to find out. Or maybe they'd just sit there and burn. It's quite interesting. But you could move it out that way.

If you wanted, by the way, to make this whole universe vanish, you would have to be able to span this whole universe. You would have to be as big as the universe. You could drill somebody up to the point where he could do that.

Now, what is this all about? Does that mean that anybody bringing about an agreement would bring about hypnotism? Oh, no. The reason why in Scientology we do not bring about an hypnotism, even by Opening Procedure by Duplication – every Case V that's had this run on him claims it's a way to induce trance – but every single one of the tenets of Scientology could be reversed and, with a bad intention and so forth, could be worked out in the opposite direction.

Axiom Twenty-Four: Total ARC would bring about the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence.

We are undoing the agreements which people have been making for seventy-six trillion years. Only we're undoing them, so this makes them freer and freer and freer.

All mechanical conditions of existence. It wouldn't bring about the sudden death of everything. It would bring about the exteriorization of everything. It would mean the vanishment of all space and all form. Mechanics.

Now, show you this fellow on the stage who simply gets the audience to agree and agree and agree and agree and then tells them the place is on fire. Oh? He isn't really going in the direction of making them freer, is he? His intention for this is entirely different.

Differentiate between a consideration – a postulate – and a mechanic. Be sure to get the difference between a quality such as complete trust, a quality such as full responsibility, in other words the qualities along the top of the Chart of Attitudes – and the mechanics. A person who is all out for mechanics, and won't have anything to do with considerations, believes completely that considerations are of no worth and that mechanics are the thing ("You can put your hands on it, you can feel it, you can touch it") – this person would have to be made thoroughly acquainted with the existence of these mechanics before he could As-is them sufficiently to reach a level where he would have the ability to consider. He has sunk below the level of mechanics.

It isn't that an intention is above agreement. It's that consideration is always above agreement. He is trying to work them into a situation where they will accept what he says without question. We're not interested, in Scientology, in anybody accepting what we say without question. We ask them to question it; we ask them to please look at the physical universe around you; please look at people, at your own mind, and understand thereby that what we are talking about happens to be actual. This is the series of agreements. These are. They aren't just fancy ideas.

That's why 8C Opening Procedure, which acquaints the person with his immediate environment, works as it does.

Now, I could get people to agree with me about a lot of things. And every once in a while I could throw them a curve. I could quite imperceptibly introduce a false idea into the science and maybe somebody less scrupulous might do this. But over a period of four years, you can trace back and you'll find out the only arbitraries I've introduced into the science that are completely false are "the psychiatrists are no good" and "the psychologists are stupid."

Well, when we say mechanics, we mean space, energy, objects and time. And when something has those things in it we're talking about something mechanical. That's all that would vanish if you As-ised all of existence – just the mechanics – and you could turn right around and postulate them all back again too with great ease.

And of course those are completely false. I mean, the fact that psychiatry kills two thousand people a year with electric shock machines of course means that they're bettering the community, and they're doing what they should do and they're humanitarian. And they're not out for money.

Axiom Twenty-Five: Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the coexistence of static, through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.

But introducing ideas like this, I would be apt to get more agreement from people than otherwise. But what I am giving you is not counter-thought. If you just kept, you know, fighting the concepts that I gave you all the way up the line, you would just be re-agreeing all over the place. What we're doing here is laying out the map of what has happened in seventy-six trillion years, and your agreements have finally mounted up to a point where you believe this is – this universe is all here and what you're agreeing to, fortunately, are the very things which you agreed to.

Affinity, in terms of mechanics, is simply a matter of distance. Affinity is basically a consideration, but it does represent itself mechanically. For instance, Total Knowingness goes down to Lookingness. You have to look to find out. Well that's different from simply knowing without looking. We go down to Looking, now we go just a little bit lower than that. (This Know-to-Mystery scale is by the way an Affinity scale.) We go into Emotion, and then we no longer have knowledge by looking. We have to have knowledge by emotion. Do we like it – do we dislike it. There are particles in emotion: "I don't like it" – in other words "I have some anger particles about it" or "I have some resentment particles" – and by the way a preclear has his reactive mind full of these emotion particles.

We aren't giving you new things. We're giving you old things. And by understanding these old things which we have rediscovered, why, you become free.

Now if I "have to feel it to know it is there", I've gone immediately into Effort. And my affinity for something would be good if I could feel it and it would be no good at all if I couldn't feel it. You get a Step V, a Black V, who is swearing by mechanics (and swearing at all life forms) and builds atom bombs and such things – and he tells you that he cannot contact life. He can't contact this thing called the Static, therefore he "can't believe in it". This is very interesting. You ask him why, and he says, "Well I can't feel it." He's twisting the snake around so it'll eat its tail. He's proving it all upside down and backwards. He says he can't get the existence of something he can't feel. And the odd part of it is that we can measure electronically the existence of life. There is a little meter on which we ran some tests, and we can actually demonstrate that one individual can turn on in another individual at some great distance from him a considerable electrical current, enough to make this little machine sit up and sing. And the other person can turn it on at will, and the person on whom it's being turned on can't stop it. Here is a manifestation that can be measured. We've done the impossible there too. We've done the impossible in many places in Scientology. You can't measure a Static but we've done so by having a person, at a distance, bring a mechanic into being.

Well now, what is this feeling of unreality that people get, this unconsciousness and upset condition of forgetfulness, and so forth? Well, actually, forget-fulness and so on stems from an effort to make things disappear by pressing against them with energy. We push against a thought – if you can imagine this – and if we push against it hard enough and then say it isn't there while it's still there, why, we will become forgetful, believe me. And if we push hard enough, we will become unconscious.

When a person gets down to Effort on this scale then he's into a level where he's "gotta work", everything has got to be work. He's got to touch everything and feel everything before he can know anything. A person in the Effort band, by the way, as he gets to the lower part of that band, has facsimiles. He's got mental image pictures. He'll even do weird things like this: he will get a picture to know what's happening to him. In other words, he'll get a mental image picture of a past incident in order to get an idea. He gets the picture and then he gets the idea, he doesn't get the idea and then get a picture. You want to watch that. Sometime you'll find a preclear who's doing this. You'll be saying "All right, get the idea of being perfect." And your preclear will sit there and say, "I got it." You want to ask him, "How did you do that?" That's a wonderful question to ask a preclear at any time. "How did you do that?" And he'll say, "Why, of course, just like everybody else. I got this picture and this picture came up and I looked at it and the picture said, 'Be perfect,' and it showed me a circle, and a circle – well, that's perfect." That's how your preclear was doing that. He wasn't making the postulate at all. He was waiting for a picture to come and tell him what it was all about.

But remember, we had to postulate that we could forget and we had to postulate that we could become unconscious before either of these things could happen.

Now we go down from Effort into Thinking, and we get our "figure-figure" case. This case is hard to get along with – he can't work. Life is not composed of thought, particularly.

You know, people roll around waiting to go to sleep? Then they say," I am going to go to sleep." Well, inspect R2-40 and you'll understand why the proper thing to do is to simply say "I am asleep."

It's composed of space and action and all sorts of things. The Static can do all these things and is not necessarily "all pure thought". Thinkingness comes in down the scale at the level below Effort. And it comes in as figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. Now a person can postulate without thinking about it, and if that's what we mean by thought, that's fine. But usually what people mean by thought is figure-figure. "I'll just figure this out and I'll get a computation and a calculation and I'll add it up to… now let me see… can you go to the movies? I don't know," – the kind of answer a little kid gets. "Now let me see. I'll have to think it over.

"Well," they say, "that's a lie!"

Give me a couple of days." We don't know how all of this mechanic got into a postulate, but they've let it get in there. So that's the level, Thinkingness.

No. No, it isn't a lie unless you considered that you were awake. Now, if you said, "I am awake and now I am going to sleep," why, of course, you wouldn't go to sleep. Or you might – if you could induce a self-trance you could.

Now we go downstairs from Thinkingness on this scale and we get into Symbolizingness. A symbol contains mass, meaning and mobility. A symbol is something that's being handled from an orientation point – a point which is motionless in relationship to the symbol. It's motionless, and the symbol is in motion, and has mass, meaning and mobility. "Where are you from?" "I am from New Jersey." This fellow is telling you that he is from an orientation point called New Jersey. It's motionless and as he runs around the world, he is always from New Jersey. He has mass, meaning and mobility. He has a name. When a person drops down the scale below figure-figure, he is into a point where he figures with symbols. Now that's a condensation, isn't it. Each of these was a condensation.

But the point I am trying to make is that you can make at any moment a prime postulate. Well, more about that later.

The next one down the line, below Symbols, is Eatingness. Animals eat animals.

Well, now you've had considerable about communication. Oh my, the communication… and the formula of communication and duplication and so on in Scientology that we have covered is very great. But let's read again this formula on communication:

Animals are symbols and they eat other symbols and they think they have to stay alive by eating other symbols. This is real cute and eating is quite important of course and it can be a lot of fun, but here you have a real condensation. In other words, Effort got so condensed that it turned into an inverted kind of Thought, and that became so condensed that it packaged thinking – that's what took place there – it became so condensed it became a Symbol. A word, for instance, is a whole package of thought. So packaged thinking is a symbol and packaged symbols are a plate of beans.

Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication of that which emanated from the source-point.

Below that, when a person doesn't believe he can eat any more, when he thinks he is not going to survive, he will go into the Sexingness band. If you starve cattle for a while they'll start to breed, and if you feed them too well they'll stop breeding. Quite irrational, but then who said any of this was rational? Cattle who are starved or lacking certain food elements will decide, well, we'll live again in some other generation – and they'll breed up a lot of calves. Of course there's nothing to feed the calves on but they haven't paid much attention to that. In Arizona we have an interesting fact – we have some very beautiful cattle who have stopped breeding. They've just been too well fed. The way to get those cattle breeding again would be to simply start starving them. Freud by the way was so condensed he had to get way down there to that condensation level of Sex "in order to find out".

Now, understand, we are using this word duplicate as copy. And we have a perfect duplicate, which means as-is. Now, that's the way we're using it today. When we say duplicate we merely mean a copy. We say copy, facsimile, duplicate, we mean pretty much the same thing. And when we're saying perfect duplicate, we mean as-is, and we mean the object in its place, in its time, with its own energy. But a duplicate, that is another piece of energy in another space and so forth, but it's a copy.

Below Sex we have a new level of knowingness, the level of Mystery.

So we send a telegram from New York City and it says "I love you," and it arrives in San Francisco and it says" I loathe you." Something has happened there, that we don't get a perfect duplicate.

Mystery of course is the complete displacement of everything, and everything in a terrific confusion. The anatomy of Mystery is unprediction, confusion and then total blackout.

Well, the more mechanical an individual gets, the less he can make a perfect duplication, and so he can't as-is. And he falls even off to a point of where he can't make an exact copy.

First he couldn't predict some particles, and then it all seemed awfully confusing to him and then he just shut it all off and said "I won't look at it anymore". That's what Mystery is, and your Step Fives by the way are very, very concerned about Mystery. They're very concerned about Thinkingness and trying to solve the Mystery. Well the Mystery is already solved in an ultimate truth. The ultimate solution of course is simply the As-is-ness of the problem. And the As-is-ness of a Mystery is simply the Mystery. That's really all there is to it. There really is nothing to know back of a Mystery, except the Mystery itself. It's just As-isness. But Mystery is the level of always pretending there's something to know earlier than the Mystery.

So you say, "Go around the corner and tell Betty I love her." And he goes around the corner and says, "Joe said to tell you he loathes you." And he's perfectly happy doing this.

To sum this up we have, under Axiom Twenty-five: By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale.

We get a line of soldiers and we whisper a message, "H-hour is at ten o'clock." Now, you're supposed to whisper that to the next soldier. And when it goes through a dozen soldiers this way, we find out at the other end "We had beans for supper" is the message which they claim was put on the lines.

This is an inability to make copies. And this is the most disruptive thing and the most significant thing about communication. The formula of communication, for your own use and so forth, is simply cause, distance, effect, with a good copy at effect of that which was at cause. That's all you really need to know about communication.

All right. There's much more to that in the manual, and you will understand much more about communication.

Now, 29 is another Axiom about as-isness and persistence. And it tells you why people have to mock up another creator, and so forth, than themselves for their own creations. In order to get a persistence, they have to assign another authorship to the creation, and so on. They have to say it's other-responsibility. That's so that when they look at it they won't make an as-is of it. You see, if they'd have said that "I made it and now I look at it," why, that would be very bad. But if they said – if they created something and then they said, "Bill made it," then when they look at it, why, they say, "Bill made it." But that's a lie. So we get persistence stemming out of a second postulate, a lie. They made it, then they said somebody else made it. And so we get persistency stemming out from any lie.

Now we get number 30: The general rule of auditing is that anything which is unwanted and yet persists must be thoroughly viewed, at which time it will vanish. And we know that, of course, in the line of duplicates – perfect duplicates.

Now 31: Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.

And 32: Anything which is not directly observed tends to persist. In other words, if you don't as-is it, and you've already said it's going to be there, why, naturally it will be there.

But this is worse than that. You get somebody working at his work and he's never paying any attention to the machine, he's always paying some attention to the work, we'll find he has facsimiles of the machine just all stacked up like mad. He's never as-ised the machine.

We get somebody who has always looked at lighted objects in dark rooms, has never looked at the darkness, he will eventually see nothing but darkness when he closes his eyes. He'll have a black bank, in other words.

Thirty-three: Any as-isness which is altered by not-isness tends to persist. In other words, if we use force on something, we will get a persistence.

Now we're going to go into something which is tremendously interesting, because it is the proof of the fact that we have reached an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution. And that ultimate truth, and so on, is itself very, very important to an auditor. Because that tells you whether or not Scientology is a total subject.

I used to show you a circle and showed you just before you got to the top point of the circle, all data was known. When you got to the top point of the circle, no data was known. And then you had to start out with a new data again.

You went around the circle and up to the point where all data was known. Then you came up to the top again, and then you got no data known, and one datum known.

You see that? It was a circle. Everything known and nothing known were adjacent. Well, we've reached that point in Scientology. That's because all truth is a static and the ultimate solution is a static. Naturally, the solution to a problem is the as-isness of the problem. By solution to the problem, we mean: What will cause this problem to dissipate and disappear?

Well, the as-isness of the problem will cause it to dissipate and disappear. So therefore we have reached the solution of all problems; we've also reached an ultimate truth.

Now, let's go into this ultimate truth just a little bit. The remainder of the Axioms are devoted to this. I'm just going to take it up with a very fast explanation, rather than go into the remainder of these Axioms, because you have them, after all, in your Handbook.

It was entered like this: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration – suddenly realized that. The stupidity, that's the unknownness of the consideration: you don't know what he was thinking about; you don't know what he was talking about; you don't know what it meant. Well, that means it's the unknown-ness of consideration.

Well, mechanically, the mechanical definition of stupidity is the unknown-ness of time, place, form and event. See? A fellow is really stupid. He knows something happened, but he doesn't know what happened, he can't add it up, he can't do anything with it.

All right. Now we say: Truth is the exact consideration. That's the consideration. Now, mechanically, truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Ah-ha! Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

Well, wait a minute. We say truth is the exact consideration. Well, all right, it's the exact consideration. The truth of the fellow saying, "I am a man," the truth is "I am a man." That's the first postulate.

Now he says," I am a man," so he's a man. That's the exact consideration. He cannot tell a lie until he has said," I am a man," and then he has masked or hidden the fact that he is a man and he says, "I am a woman."

Now, the odd part of it is that he made a truth when he made the first postulate. And that which denied that truth then persisted. The second postulate always persists. I give you R2-40. The dissertation in R2-40 in the Handbook makes this much clearer. But just look at that. The second postulate persists, not the first one.

The second postulate introduces time. Now, persists is time, that's all. Mortality, immortality – this is a matter of time. It's also a matter of identity, but it's basically a matter of time. That which is persisting means that which is "timing." And if you have assumed that after you made a postulate, you then had something which permitted you to make another postulate, you'd have to postulate time there, wouldn't you?

Ah, it's quite interesting. So that's your second postulate, then, introduces time. Merely because it's the second postulate, you had to introduce time. See, there is no time in the static natively. Time is just a consideration. All right, so you introduce time, you get a lie.

This is mechanical, by the way; this is the way it works. You make a second postulate in front of the first postulate, it's the second postulate which persists. But it derives its strength from the first postulate.

There is a large dissertation on this in R2-40, and I give you that for your consideration. But the way we entered into the solution of the subject of Scientology and life was this – again, I give you this: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

Well, then truth is the knownness of the consideration, isn't it? Well, right back there we have that perfect duplicate; right back on the line, we found out that when you got the asisness of anything, if you made a perfect duplicate of it, it would disappear, wouldn't it?

So, truth is a perfect duplicate. But that's a disappearance! Well, if that's a disappearance, then all you've got left is the static. So truth is a static. And it follows through just as clearly as that. It's a mechanical proof. It's as mechanical as any kind of proof you wanted, in any field of mathematics – it's totally mechanical.

Now, again: A problem is a solution only when you get the as-isness of the problem. That right? A problem is a solution when you get the as-isness of the problem. Therefore, what have we got left? We got the as-isness of the problem; we have nothing left.

Oh-oh, but we don't have nothing. We have a static.

So, we find out that the ultimate truth is also the basic truth, contains no time, no motion, no mass, no wavelength. And we find the ultimate solution contains no time, no mass, no wavelength. Very interesting, isn't it?

Very, very fascinating. So we've come back to something which is not an imponderable. Does and can one of these statics exist? Yes. That, too, we can subject to proof. And we could subject it to proof immediately, instantly and easily. Nothing to it.

You just ask somebody who's not in too bad a condition to "be three feet back of your head." You can ask him to be anywhere, to appear anywhere in the universe, and he can. You ask him to manufacture space and energy, and he can.

In other words, you can inspect, actually, whether or not this is taking place and you will find out that it is taking place. And you will find out that man is basically a static. So he doesn't move, he appears.

Now, therefore, we have this thing called the static, we have this thing called the perfect duplicate, the as-isness, so therefore we have this thing called an ultimate truth and we have an ultimate solution.

Now, I say in Scientology that we have wrapped it up. There are a great many strong points on the track where there's a lot of data hidden in chaoses and confusions and that sort of thing which we've bypassed, a lot of things which we haven't described adequately. For instance, I am not even satisfied at this moment completely with affinity and our description of affinity. But I can tell you this: that they are bypassed points.

The other evening at two o'clock in the morning I suddenly found myself out at the edge of a cliff, looking at end-of-track. It is end-of-track. That's right – there was no more road. There isn't any more road out there, that's all, because we've come back to the static.

And we find out what this static is, we can demonstrate its existence, we can demonstrate what it does, we can prove it and we can all agree upon that proof. And we can do wonderful and miraculous things with it.

The forty processes contained in the Auditor's Handbook can do those things, just like that.

Now, if you can do the first few of those processes well, certainly up to process 20, you will be doing very, very well. If you understand this whole subject, why, come down to Phoenix and I will give you a D. Scn. But if you could pass the CECS with great ease, without any further training, we would be very surprised people – very, very surprised people.

Okay.