Are there any questions about your immediate auditing? Are there any questions about your immediate auditing? Are you running into anything? Oh, come, come, come, come, come now!

How are you doing today?

Male voice: I ran into something, but I think we're handling it.

Audience: Okay. Fine.

All right. What did you run into?

Okay. Well, we have some data to cover today. This is the twenty-eighth of January 1958. And we have the second lecture on this series on Clear. And the name of the lecture is "Man the Animal and Man the God." This is a lecture primarily about the Tone Scale and the eight dynamics, and how they are affected by what we are doing now, and the interpretation that Clear makes of these things.

Male voice: Present time problem refused to drop on a stuck needle.

It's quite interesting to note that we have had nearly all the answers for a very long time. And it's interesting that it was a combination of these answers, rather than a new answer, which brought about the making of Clear by somebody other than myself.

Yeah?

Now, we have this point — we have this point: A person who has no subjective reality on Clear or being Clear would be thought to have a great deal of trouble producing one. This has been almost a stable datum — data — with some people — a stable datum that it took a Clear to produce a Clear, and if you didn't have a Clear, therefore only one person could ever make a Clear, you see? And it was a round and round we go, and so on. Quite amusing.

Male voice: That's the only data I have. That's what it did. And come hell or high water, that's what it did.

Well now, the HGC has just produced a Clear as a routine action. Now, this is the first Clear that was produced as a wholly routine action.

A present time problem is sticking a needle?

And this pc was not one of the easier pcs. As a matter of fact, we have — we have several profiles on this particular pc, and these indicate that older processes were ineffective. Isn't that interesting? I mean, we had a case that tough, and we made a Clear out of him.

Male voice: And didn't unstick.

Now, it's very easy, you see, to take somebody who is almost Clear and make a Clear out of him. This is very simple. But to take somebody who is very low on his reality in general and who does not respond well to processing, who has a great many problems but doesn't even know it, that type of case — I'm not saying this HGC preclear was that bad, but to make a Clear out of such a person is quite a — quite an activity.

How do you handle a PT problem?

Now, to take an auditor who is not a Clear and have him audit somebody, and have this person then attain a state far superior to the auditor's is very interesting — unless we remember this one datum: And that is to say that an auditor is always senior to a Clear. See, that's true, you see: An auditor is always senior to a Clear. That you must remember.

Male voice: (pause) Well, you — um, find out as many things as the guy can be responsible for.

Now, for many years I have contended that an auditor's case level did not terrifically influence the result of the case — and that was practically over other people's dead bodies. And in this particular case, we had an auditor whose own case — it's not bad, it's not good — auditor responds well to processing, but we're so busy around here, he's the cobbler's child: He just never gets any shoes, you know? And he sailed forth with a little bit of protest, one way or the other, to the Director of Processing. And he got optimistic after a while. And then after about — after about forty hours, he found himself looking at an E-Meter which no longer acted on anything no matter what the preclear ran. The auditor just assumed that Father and Mother and good old-time Scientology buttons — he just assumed that all these good old-time buttons, you see, would have some significance on them. None of them registered, but he ran them anyway and finished them off. And no meter reaction — meter in perfectly good working order, but on nothing did he get a bop — just a gentle, steady rise, up, up, up, up, up, higher and higher. And every time he'd think about something or something of the sort, why, he'd get another little rise on the E-Meter.

That's one way of handling it. There are three ways of handling a present time problem. They are as follows:

And the only thing that this Clear wanted to do, then — he thought — he thought Havingness was pretty good. And I think you'll find that most people, when they get up to that state they very happily will run Havingness. Of course, they want to go for broke, now, on the mest universe. You see?

Fairly high-toned case — two-way comm.

And the funny part of it is, for the first some little time, the first few hours of this state, the preclear did not know it: He could see clearly that there was an awfully long way to go; he was now looking toward OT. And he could see OT with great clarity. But he'd sit back and make a remark like, "Boy, this is the most," you know? (Clearing didn't improve his English much.) But, "This is the most!" And he'd never felt like this before. And he knew a lot of things he'd never known before. But the one thing he did know is that there was a terrific breadth between where he was and where a thetan could get to.

Middle range case — if you want a killer, is "Invent something worse than," and then "Problems of comparable magnitude to." That's a killer for a middle range case. That just takes the problem, bayonets it, throws it over cliffs, puts it through cane shredders. You understand? That's a real killer.

Now, being able to see that is, to my mind, one of the conditions of Clear. Somebody tells you he doesn't know where to go after he gets to Clear — now that he's Clear he doesn't know where to go — you'd better take him back to sit in that chair. He's probably never been in-session.

For a middle range or a high-toned case, you can get rid of one very rapidly with a very limited process which mustn't be continued very long, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this, as an oddity. This defies most of the laws that man thought he was running on. "It took a Clear to make a Clear," you know? But it's not that it's just a compliment to this particular piece of research and investigation, but it is definitely an overthrow of an old concept that people have had. An auditor doing a good job, at any point of the Tone Scale on his own case, can achieve any result he wishes. His results are not limited by his case. That is because he is aided and assisted by considerable weapons. His weapons are considerable, don't you see? His intellectual understanding is considerable. Even though his subjective reality is very poor, he still understands or can understand what this is about.

Male voice: What do you do in the case you don't know what the problem is? In this case it's . . .

Therefore, there's really nothing demanded of his case, except perhaps that his case must not leap up in front of his face to such a degree that he can't stay awake in an auditing chair, or that. . . But it's pretty hard to imagine. Our training level today is so arduous, the discipline is so considerable that I don't think an auditor could get through it and then fail to make a Clear. You see?

Ah, just a minute.

One of the things remarkable about modern training is that it bypasses aberration. We have learned that training is not a substitute for clearing.

Male voice: Okay.

These are not horses of the same color. They're both horses but not of the same hue. Processing is one thing, I should say, and training is quite another. Training is a distinct skill which is not necessarily resident in the person at all. And we have learned that we cannot clear by training. Interesting, isn't it?

Now, what about a low case?

Now, that was something I thought could happen. We had a whole ACC with that goal: to clear by training. We didn't make it. We didn't make it because training is a third dynamic trained activity, and clearing is more germane to the first dynamic. You're working on two different dynamics and you do not attain a Clear first by a trained third. Do you understand that?

Male voice: Yeah.

Therefore, I've just issued an HCO Bulletin to the effect that a student who does not seem to be prospering in a Comm Course should be sent over to the Processing Section. He should not be permitted to waste the next seven weeks of an HCA or HPA Course. He should simply be audited up to a point where he can be trained.

How do you handle a present time problem in a low case?

So to this degree you'd say case has some influence. In other words, if a person's case was in such bad shape that he could not be trained, then we have the condition that a person's case level has something to do with clearing. But you see on what a via it is? We're saying only that a trained auditor's case level does not interfere with creating a Clear — it's a trained auditor's case level.

Well, I can assure you that a problem that would be something that you possibly would blow off the end of your knuckle — you know, just say, "Pfff — well, that's the end of that problem," practically spins a person who is totally crushed in all the time everything — about everything, see? Practically spins him. Ah, you're looking at a whole case in a PT problem. Isn't that desperate?

Well, that doesn't mean that Joe Blow or Dr. Slinkowitz or ... One of my old pen names I used to raise the devil with psychiatry probably was one of the more prompting factors in a lot of these psychiatric jokes and so forth. I have never confessed where these articles have appeared, but they have appeared in several places under "Dr. Irving Cutsman." And Dr. Irving Cutsman has got to kill everybody in order to make them well. Well now, the point is he could not be trained, you see? He'd be an untrainable case. You even take an Academy Instructor, experienced, seasoned, hardened, and have him chew into this student constantly and continuously and rip him up one side and down the other side constantly, and put him in a brace and put him through the drills and so forth. And this could keep up for a very long time, and Dr. Irving Cutsman would not have become an auditor. You see?

Isn't that a horrible thing? It is horrible. I mean, just the fact that this happened to him now creates a total case on the subject of a PT problem.

There is a certain thing meant by this phrase or statement: "auditor," you see? There's a certain thing meant by the word auditor. Today it isn't just a desire, it isn't just a — well, having slept through a number of classes or something, you see? We know exactly what an auditor has to be able to do. He has to do all the Comm Course drills and he has to do all the Upper Indoc drills. And he has to be able to cope with the parts of man and the theory of Scientology — he has to be able to cope with this, at least. And he has to be able to perform the processes very exactly. And that is an auditor. That is an auditor.

His answer to it is individuation at once. Get away from it. Get out from under it somehow or another. Get out from under what?

Now, an auditor might be other things, and generally is — he generally is a theoretician in his own right. See, he sees things and he gets ideas about them. An auditor is not restrained to that degree, so he is not then merely a technician. He is capable of using his materials, of course, in other places besides an auditing room or a classroom.

His identity, of course. His chief method of solving this problem when it gets down to that point is simply to die, get away from it, change your identity, get out from under his present time circumstances. Kangaroo, when startled, will pick her babies out of the pouch and throw them away. Women will have miscarriages. You get the idea? Compulsive — throw it away, throw it away, see? Get rid of it. Somebody causes a little problem about the house — give it away, walk off and leave it.

See, I don't know, anymore, all the auditors there are. When I see somebody on the street talking to somebody or I hear somebody come in the door and talk to somebody, I know at once whether he's a Scientologist or a Homo sap — just at once (snap). It's the easiest thing to spot you ever saw. First place, the auditor would probably go on talking until he get what he wants or sees that he's got to go on another via. He has a — he's not as — quite as overwhelmed about talking to people and so forth. He recognizes them for what they are and he keeps on pushing in that particular direction. You listen to his general conversation, you find out that he's careful to acknowledge and he generally sees when the other person is out of communication and puts him in, very promptly. He's quite a realist on the third dynamic. And the mark is very apparent.

An old man, one time, had a little trouble with a Model T Ford — brand-new Model T Ford. And he was driving it home from the dealers and halfway home it stalled, and he couldn't get it started again. He walked off and left it. He totally individuated from the person who wanted a new Ford to a person who didn't want a new Ford with entirely new characteristics, don't you see? That was his answer. You got it?

It might amuse you, sometime, to look around and see the difference between an auditor and a Homo sap. You just watch Homo sap walk up to another Homo sap and start "talking." He has no direction, there's a great deal of feeling that he probably isn't going to get there anyhow, and some kind of an automatic mechanism is put in the place of beingness in order to accomplish this sort of thing. You can conduct all sorts of experiments on people as to whether they are talking or something else is talking. But the main thing about it is, is you just get an ear for it. And you know whether they are or not.

So it makes a whole case, all by itself when, one, the problem is of sufficient severity or, two, when the case is at a sufficiently low level. Either condition can obtain, either one can obtain.

Well, an auditor, then — an auditor, then, does have a very precise thing that makes him an auditor, and that is skill on the third dynamic. And that, at least, is demanded. And his understanding, of course, goes up into his own theory and theorizing and wondering what the score is and trying to look at things and tell what they are and so forth. But his case level has very, very little to do with his ability to audit.

And when you see a stuck needle that won't unstick for anything, you're looking at a total PT problem. One of the things that will happen to such a case is the case will do a bunk. Be careful of saying, "Be three feet back of your head" to such a case, because it's the very invitation he wants to do an inverted exteriorization, see? He'll just flip on the thing. You get the criticalness of it?

Now therefore, we can ask the idea — this question: What would be the result of having a cleared auditor? What would you get if you had a cleared auditor?

Well, how do you handle such a problem?

Oh, you'd just get better and faster auditing.

Well, there is a basic way to handle a problem that we know positively eventually does — and that is TR 10.

What if you had an OT who was an auditor?

A better one than that, if a person can run it at all, is Connectedness. This Control Connectedness that we are running right here has not been left in the lineup without malice and forethought and is the only thing I know of that will, one, improve the case and, two, get rid of the stuck-needle-type PT problem. See, it will do both — it will do both of those things.

Well, I'll clue you: I don't think a person could ever attain OT unless he was an auditor. I really don't. He would still be bogged into so many questions that an auditor has already answered satisfactorily to himself that he would be restrained from attaining the state, don't you see? Because OT is out there into the third and up. And an auditor is already into the third. And it'd probably take a long time for somebody not an auditor to get anywhere past the third. Don't you see? And that auditor probably could get past the third very easily. So a cleared auditor undoubtedly could produce some rather whammo results, and he could probably go on up to OT with considerable ease.

Now, TR 10 has this liability. It doesn't much improve the case; it'll get rid of the problem, but it doesn't much improve the case. Do you understand that? Because he doesn't get the idea of being at cause, in it. That's why it remains as TR 10, why it is not a processing step. It isn't called CCH 10, you see? It's called TR 10. It's just a training step. All actual processes are processes because they improve the case. TRs are there because they improve the auditor. Do you follow me on this?

Well, it sort of looks, if we look at it that way, as though there is a barrier of some sort which is resident between a first dynamic and the eighth. There must be something between the first dynamic and the eighth — some interposition which prevents somebody from graduating up the dynamics.

Audience: Yeah.

Now, here we've intercepted the dynamics from one to eight at the third. And here we find a person who is trained at the third and therefore, to a marked degree, has bridged it. Well, if he's bridged the third, he probably wouldn't have too much trouble into the fourth, don't you see? So an auditor is already at the third and fourth.

So Connectedness, no matter how arduous it is to carry it out, will do this. All right.

Well, if you watch auditors around, you'll see that they — most of them these days don't have too much trouble with animals. They merely use good communication with the animal and so forth. So that pretty well takes care of the fifth.

Now, let's get into this thing called a problem. What is a problem?

Well, an auditor is already accustomed to confronting the sixth, the mest universe. Get where we're going? And he certainly isn't terrified of the seventh. And he has his doubts about the eighth. Do you see that?

Two or more considerations opposed, that's a problem — two or more considerations opposed.

So in order to make something approximating an OT, apparently it'd only be necessary to clean up the first and second on him. Do you see this? So it becomes an easy job.

A dramatized problem becomes a game. Football field — here, instead of a consideration you have a team versus not a consideration, but a team. But that even a football game is basically this — is you can get one team to consider something and have it lose.

Well, very well. Let's examine, now, the anatomy of this from one to eight and see what we come up with. Let's take a brand-new look at the dynamics. The first dynamic is the dynamic of self. Second dynamic, the dynamic of sex. Third dynamic, the dynamic of groups. Fourth dynamic, mankind. Fifth dynamic, the animal world. Sixth dynamic, the mest universe. Seventh dynamic, the spiritual universe — thetans. Eighth dynamic, Supreme Being or infinity.

There's somebody right here that coached a bunch of Olympic team people and had them beat another team by changing its considerations. The Olympic boys, I think, had to go up against the navy on swimming, if I remember this story right, and in order to win against the navy — they knew they probably couldn't swim better than the navy so they won against the navy, anyhow, by simply convincing the navy that it had won already. "There's no sense in struggling against you boys, you're so good. Yes, well, you're pretty hot. And in these trials and preliminaries you certainly show up, and you've got this made in the shade." And the navy team did not even try, and the Olympic team simply mopped them up. By doing what? By changing the considerations involved in the game. Right?

Now, we take this span and find, in the first place, that it was a more or less arbitrary and artificial method of compartmenting livingness or life so that it could be examined piecemeal. Now, you examine things piecemeal to keep from being overwhelmed by them. If you saw a pack of wolves tearing along at you, you would rather tend to split them up into individual wolves, right? And when you found out how to take care of an individual wolf, why, then you might let a couple of them get together and so on, until you could handle the pack.

Well, obviously, it's necessary to change the considerations in a preclear before you can solve the problem. But about what? Now, before you can change any considerations, you'd better find out what considerations you're trying to change and about what. And the isolation of the terminals involved in the problem to the satisfaction of the preclear can result in the problem going pfffft. Because we have this thing of interposition between the preclear and the object, see? Communication break — it all looks completely confused out there.

By the way, there is no great trick in preventing oneself from being overwhelmed, so long as he pays attention to the gradient scale. Let's find out what it is before we succumb to it. Of course, that is one of these delightful situations that simply tells somebody he will never succumb to it. Because if he finds out what it is, he becomes familiar with it. And that gradient scale of familiarity will take him right up to the top, and he will not succumb to it.

So now we get into a dangerous area, however, because if you talk too much with this preclear — not to him, it doesn't hurt him to talk to him — but if you talk too much with him so that he talks too much, you run down his havingness. So that must be avoided. And on a very low case this becomes a very tricky operation — the isolation of the problem — so tricky that it probably cannot be done. There's a band where it still can be done, but below that it can't be done at all.

It's quite interesting: It's doubtful if an animal would ever die from a bullet, very doubtful, if he had any ability to look at a gradient scale of a bullet. It sort of introduces the odd question that if he was shot a little bit every day, after a while he couldn't be shot. That's probably true, too.

Let's look at an insane person. We say to this insane person, "Now, let's go to the bottom of this and articulate your problem." It can't be done, can it? But a person who is merely soddenly and horribly, apathetically, stuckly worried, might possibly be persuaded to do so, as a last resort.

The alcoholic is not a case in question because he's simply dramatizing overwhelmedness. See, he doesn't take in any gradient scale. But you could probably cure an alcoholic by making him drink, himself, on his own determinism. The situation made him take a drink, see? Well now, that's nonsense, but if he simply sat down and drank his way through the engram — oh, he probably would make it. He'd probably have to get up to a demijohn of rum in a day before he really felt that whiskey could no longer overwhelm him. Quite remarkable — being overwhelmed by anything.

But we have a mechanic known as havingness. Since all problems derive around the consideration of loss of havingness — this loss of havingness is always a little side panel to every other consideration in a problem — somewhere around the problem there is a threatened loss.

But let's take a look at these eight dynamics and recognize that they are a system of compartmenting the universe so that it can be studied bit by bit. Well, therefore, they must be a gradient scale of the universe. And, by the way, they're more than a study mechanism, these eight dynamics are. We look at the universe and we find out that it has a gradient scale of approach in it that's possible. You look at yourself, you look at the other fellow, you look at other people, you see, and you can go on up this way. The eighth dynamic — we do a little jog there. Look at yourself, look at your future, you look at the opposite sex and the family. And then you start looking at a less specialized group, and we get the third dynamic. Now, is this more than merely an example of something?

Definition, by the way, of "threat" is quite interesting on your Keep It from Going Away. A threat is a method of keeping it from going away. See, a threat is an automatic "keep it from going away." Do you get the idea? "There will always be that pressure against me." "Automobiles are always threatening to jump on me." In other words, it's a threatened "keep it from going away." All right, that's a threat.

Well, yes, yes, the eight dynamics are very much more than merely a handy way to study something, but we can still use them in a study line. We can say, "Well, if an individual wished to know the eighth, the Supreme Being, then, if you please, let him first find himself. Now, he cannot experience the eighth before he can experience." Sounds awfully dull, doesn't it? But they've been at it for two thousand years, of experiencing the eighth without ever getting hep to number one. Quite remarkable. The utter conceit of these people is sickening. And you'd think they had — that every morning before breakfast they walked up a golden staircase and shook hands with God. Well, they're remarkable. They're remarkable because their mandates and other things, more often than not, seek to suppress spiritual awareness of self — more often than not. And in addition to that, these men — these men quite ordinarily got where they are by self-interest. And yet we find this right next door to the eighth dynamic. It's quite remarkable.

But there's a threat to havingness, and there is a "keep it from going away" mixed up in the consideration, too. And the reason the preclear has got it at all is because he's used it to keep something from going away, and it has become, at some time in the past, a survival mechanism. And it is no longer a survival mechanism but has become an anti- or succumb-mechanism. An individuation has taken place; he changed his personality since he last regarded this as a survival action. He had problems, maybe, to keep his father's interest. Now, one day, he's merely got problems.

Well, that's because — that's because these dynamics go: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And you could say they go, immediately after that — it doesn't matter which way you look at it because it can invert either way: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And you find out that after an individual who is already spun-in to the first dynamic, spins in just a little further, he falls into a false eight. So most of these organizations, these religions and so forth, have not been talking about a Supreme Being. They have been talking about their concept of a Supreme Being. That's a vast difference. If they had only said it was their concept of a Supreme Being, we would have honesty. But we're not going to find honesty at that level of the Tone Scale. So they represented this Supreme Being as being the only Supreme Being and therefore, to some degree, turned people away from any possibility of a recognition of the eighth dynamic.

How are they sticking this way?

Somebody comes rushing around and pointing his finger at you saying, "You have sinned, you have sinned. Repent, repent."

Well, they're sticking on the fact that he had a survival mechanism at one time or another. But, of course, he did that to keep Father there — so as not to lose Father. You got the idea?

You ask him, "Why should I repent?"

So threat of loss and "keep it from going away" are always side computations. So there's all sorts of doors- — should start opening for you right there.

"Well, you won't go to heaven."

But on articulation of the problem — an articulation of the problem all by itself in the direction of selecting the terminals which are a problem — just get him to elect the terminals that are a problem and he will eventually find himself staring at the problem. That is a tricky one. That is a tricky one.

That's an interesting answer, "I won't go to heaven."

But a "keep it from going away" counters the threat of loss. Loss goes thataway. And keep it from going away goes thisaway. Got that?

A Buddhist would ask him, "What heaven?"

Audience: Mm-hm.

And he'd say, "Well, the heaven. The only heaven."

So there you get your ridge and how a problem makes people feel insane. It's a can't-reach-must-reach, can't-withdraw-must-withdraw. Don't you see?

"Ah! To meet the one God. Oooh."

How do you unsettle that?

Oh, there's only one God, and he's a Baptist or a Methodist, huh? Well, by the first evidence, we see there must be a Catholic God, a Presbyterian God, a Baptist God, a Methodist God, don't you see? There must be a God for each one of these people because they are evidently all separate gods. And by their own testimony and the collection and the babble of their own work, we see we must be dealing with a number of gods. Perforce — must be dealing with a number of gods.

Well, one of the easiest ways to unsettle it in general, in view of the fact that a present time problem is taking place in the present, is by Connectedness. "Get the idea of that connecting with you," which means an objective "keep it from going away," which counters the loss, which will sort the thing out eventually. See that? That's the best way I know of, at this time, of getting rid of a stuck needle.

But they become very confused about that. They have the God of the New Testament printed in the same book with the God of the Old Testament, which I consider is one of the funniest jokes, and nobody ever seems to think it's a funny joke but me. Here we have this wild-eyed revolutionary who came in, told man which way was up, gave him a good road to follow, gave us the New Testament. And they print it right in with the religion he revolted against — which I consider quite remarkable.

You get the anatomy of problems here, though, and what we're trying to do with these problems? It's interesting that problems snap in on somebody. But there are cases around that problems snap away. They're on an inversion. This case that individuates from the Ford car he just bought is a snap-away. But the normal reaction of a problem is to fall in on somebody. And then every time he solves it, he keeps the problem.

But you would expect to find those confusions that low on the scale, wouldn't you? You'd expect to.

And you actually have people around, particularly in the government, who experience physical pain at the idea of solving a problem. It keeps something from going away too strongly. Eisenhower does that. The problem hits him just about the top of his rib cage. And whenever he really is called upon, and — "This is an emergency, General. This is an emergency. This is an emergency. You must solve it! You must solve it. You must do something about it. You must solve it!" And he all of a sudden says, "Hmmm. Solve it! Bang!" Get the idea? He doesn't like it. He does not like solving problems. And you'll find most people do not like solving problems. And they, by the way, don't like you coming around and solving them, either, because you snap things in on them, too. I've told you all this before, but it's all germane to that.

Here is evidently what occurs: We get a consecutive individuation. This is a very, very, very important subject. I do not know as much as I would like to know about individuation. I have been studying it now for many, many weeks. It contains some answers which are rather, rather sweeping, which we do not at this time have: The answer to valences and that sort of thing. The answer to what is a cell. The answer to a great many questions. It's not necessary for us to answer any of these questions, but it's fun.

So you start to solve some case's problem for him, and he's in trouble. But if you make him take it apart, why, he gets over it. So, therefore, you never evaluate for a preclear and you never tell him what to do because you can physically hurt him. You must get him to take the problem apart. You must get him to keep things from going away. You must get him to take over the responsibility, one way or the other. Got it?

Now, is this universe this way? Is it this way? There was a feeling of allness in you. In other words, you were willing to take responsibility for or be part of anything, everywhere. Not necessarily that you were the only one who had this feeling, you understand? But, was it not possible that you had this feeling of everywhereness? And you were perfectly willing to take responsibility everywhere. And then it dropped down to merely being willing to take responsibility for spiritual self, considering the physical universe a little different, see? Everywhereness. And then, "Well, I am a spiritual being and therefore I am not mest." Ah, we have an individuation.

Audience: Mm-hm.

And the next dynamic down from that is right where it belongs, which is the physical universe. See, one conceives himself to be a spiritual being. Well, after a while he decides that being a spiritual being isn't all it's cracked up to be, and he'd just as soon be this other thing called the physical universe. Now, of course, there must have been contest in there of one kind or another to make him switch. Perhaps you at last identify yourself with the physical universe as being it to a very marked, sweeping degree — a greater talent than we now possess.

Well, that's the anatomy of PT problems.

And mightn't this have come down, then, to an individuation between self and something else? So that you conceive yourself to be a spirit and conceive yourself to be a body or a physical thing? And we would get into the idea of bodies, but these would split down and become species. And then we would find interest centering on just one specie, which would be man — and then finding that all man was too much to embrace and bringing this idea of bodies, you see — we've got the body idea right there at the fifth as the compromise between the seventh and the sixth. See, and from there on it's bodies.

Male voice: Just a point that came up while you were talking about that, regarding this individuation that you spoke of in the earlier lectures — I suddenly snapped that one of the big points of this individuation is an abandonment. It's an abandonment of the larger area right down to the smaller area so that the stuff that you have abandoned is then sitting there as other-determinism.

And by the time we got to the fourth, the mankind dynamic, might we — our attention not have been totally fixed upon only one animal, one being, one type of body as being a body which gave more opportunity than other bodies, perhaps?

Absolutely right. Very good.

And then sliding down further than that and finding that all mankind was too wide an armful, to say "this segment of man — this tribe." And then perhaps the tribe too much of an armful, and we get just a clan in the tribe.

Male voice: Thank you.

And then dropping down from there and deciding that was too much of an armful and embracing only the family, which would produce a future — a future tribe for which there was some hope.

Audience: Thanks.

And then losing all hope, fall back totally on self — self, a body, you understand — different than and individuated from all other things and with no responsibility for anything except self.

Yes?

And then dropping below that and taking only responsibility for certain segments of the body.

Female voice: It'll often happen that a person says, "I could know about this terminal involved in my problem." In other words, it's sort of like saying, "I could know; I don't want to know." It's good to pull off there, isn't it?

And then dropping below that and becoming not even aware of a body.

Oh, yeah.

Now, isn't that the course of individuation? Isn't it something like that, hm?

Female voice: Could be I'm not being very clear in the first place.

Well, at the upper range of this scale, we have one thing and the lower end we have another. At the bottom of the scale we have man an animal. Definitely, man an animal. See that? At the upper end of the scale, in extremis, we have man a god.

No, no, you're being perfectly clear. This is the main problem we have with HGC auditors.

Now, it doesn't say that this individual is the ultimate god. Nor does it say that man the animal is as small as he can get. But, we have a below and above for these eight dynamics. There is a below and there is an above.

Female voice: You don't want to make . . .

Now, we could define an animal as someone, something, that has no responsibility for anything beyond immediate physical self. That would be an animal. Possibly there are more apt definitions, but this happens to work in what we're talking about right now. The animal aspect would be a concentration on food for self, protection of self, clothing of self — total inflow. Now, amongst that would be an inability to feel pain anywhere but self. It's quite a trick to feel pain in the first place, but to feel pain only in oneself is quite remarkable.

Bless them, they do this — they do this: they get a process that is resolving something and they beat it to death. They start solving a problem, and their interest in it and their persistence is so great that they just make that the end-all until they got that really mopped up. And, boy, they mop it up with mops and waxers and scrapers and so forth. And having taught them to persist, I'm now faced with the necessity of telling them to put on the brakes someplace. That answer your question?

Now, we don't think it's remarkable because for the last few thousand years we have, with perfect aplomb, been able to hit somebody on the head and not feel the headache. The truth of the matter is, that's quite unnatural — quite unnatural. It's just a method of wasting headaches.

Female voice: Yes.

Now, of what use is this to us — this span here? What use is it in Clear?

You can dust one of these off lightly. The criteria of a present time problem might interest you. What is a present time problem in the limit of definition of our processing? That is something else. It is that thing or activity which makes the preclear feel that he ought to be elsewhere doing something rather than sitting there being audited. You understand? So it is an exteriorizer from the session in PT. There are actual terminals that he ought to go out and talk to. There are actually people around that he ought to get away from, see? It's a not-there condition in the auditing session. So, therefore, he never gets into session because he ought to be doing something else. See, he ought to either be running or attacking.

Well, there's only this: We have the explanation, in individuation, of unconscious actions, responses, activities and so forth. We have the explanation for it. Now, this is merely a theory — this idea of individuation. (The eight dynamics are no theory.) But this idea of individuation is a theory. It means that a person on a gradient scale stays alive as "that," but no longer has any feeling that he is "that." He stays alive as something but is no longer sharing consciousness with that something. You see this?

Male voice: Could there be a condition that he's trying to get away from there?

Now, this is apt to produce a conflict with the ideas of nirvana and other such Eastern ideas which, without any actual basis in fact, tells us that we are all one and that we broke down and became individuals. And that when we get all the way back up the line again, we will again be all one. You see, that's another theory of individuation. Now, understand that it is another theory.

Mm-hm! But the condition always goes back to a terminal.

I've stated it better than they state it in Asia. And they really state this one with circuity — and circuitry. I've had it explained to me across language bridges I could barely cross in the first place. And when I got to the other side of what they said was a bridge, I found myself in a chasm.

Male voice: Yeah.

You get this idea, the Asiatic idea. And the much earlier confused track idea of individuation would be: We were all one person, thinking as one person we were all one person, and that's all we were. And then there was some sort of a blowup and a breakdown, and the bits and pieces considered themselves themselves, and considered themselves no longer the part of the one. Don't you see?

Only those people get worried who think terminals are important.

Now, I don't say this didn't take place, I merely say it's unlikely. Because you're you and I'm me. And if you wanted a very, very remarkable problem — if you were short on problems — just get the idea of how we're both, in the same moment, talking to one another. Now, that's quite a problem. And the easy, chichi, stupid way to solve it is say, "Well, we're all the same person in the first place." See? That's a real kindergarten way of solving the problem — "It's obvious we can talk to one another because we're all the same person in the first place."

Male voice: Yes, thanks. I got that.

Well now, we stand upon the brink, today, of final, sweeping and conclusive answers to such questions as this. So I will not belabor the point. There's no reason for me to do so. I merely call to your attention the unlikelihood of what I might call the "nirvana theory." Nirvana is something else than what I'm talking to you about, but it includes the theory here of all-one, and is ... The theory I'm talking to you about has, in the most part, been forgotten in the monasteries of Asia, and they only retain some kind of a claptrap nirvana in which you're mixed up with the rest of the stew.

Yeah.

Now, the main — the main point here is simply that individuation could happen this way: that there is no limit to the allness that you can be. And there is no reason why each one of you cannot be a total individual on all dynamics, without in the least interfering with any other individual. But it takes a complicated mathematical mind to conceive that sometimes, so people abandon it and say, "Well, when we get it all broken down — all the barriers broken down, we'll just all be the same guy, and we will all float forever in stupid, packed-tight forgetherness."

This is a fascinating field — this PT problem. This is one of these gorgeous fields. Man, you can have a ball. And if you don't think there's anything to know there, you're mistaken. There's lots to know there. And it would — your ability to handle pcs depends on your ability to get across this point: The only time that a preclear never proceeds and goes up where — is where a present time problem is yanking him out of the auditing room, telling him to attack or to run away. And then he'll never get there. Second he starts to come up, he says, "Well, I ought to do something about Josie." He's — right away he's out of session thinking about what he should do to Josie, don't you see?

Now, individuation could be looked at in several ways. But I see no better explanation, at this moment, for the valence phenomenon or the phenomenon of you going on mocking up a bank and not knowing you're mocking up a bank, than this theory of individuation.

Audience: Mm-hm.

How is it that somebody is mocking up a bank, mental image pictures, things to victimize himself with all over the place, and doesn't know it? And more important, why is it that he has to be processed to find it out?

It's quite remarkable.

Ah! If he — if there wasn't some other mechanism involved here, all he'd have to do — I'd just tell you, "Well, that's the way it is," you'd look it over, you say, "That's the way it is. Well, hurray," and we'd all be Clear, see?

Yes?

But unfortunately that isn't the case. That isn't the case. You can know it intellectually, but the you that you were — the you that you were doesn't know it yet. In other words, you're haunted. And you haunt you. Do you see this? Now, you set yourself up with a total personality and you say, "I'm just going to be just like Father." And then one day you say, "I don't like being like Father, to hell with that individuality." And you give it a shove. Ah, but you have the power of granting life. You have the power of granting life. And that personality is still alive. You've already endowed it.

Female voice: Yes, I have a problem with — um, our old friend, fields, again.

Now, it isn't that every personality you make victimizes you. But when you become a personality that then victimizes you, then the personality obeys the person who is victimizing you, not you. Let's look that over. You decide you're going to be just like Mama, and then Mama cuts your throat in some fashion. You backed out of the personality. Now, Mama decides she is going to do something to you — betrayal. And this thing you set up which wasn't Mama but which was really a suborder of living being, oddly enough is powered by you and obeys Mama. And so you say, "I am haunted and there is something kicking me around I know not what of." Do you see that?

Good.

Now, this is just a nonuseful, rather amusing little sidelight on it: I don't know but what these things don't get squashed down and eventually become a cell. See, that's just the sidelights, it's amusing. But that might be the root of biology.

Female voice: And I'd like to ask the question. This is what happened in my own field. And I can get mock-ups and I can see them, shove them around and make things and so forth. But it's dark out there. But if I get a facsimile and put it there, then it's light. Now what kind of messes have I got?

You can endow things with life, and then you can abandon what you endow. And the two actions together can add an awful lot of complication to the general picture. Not only does the person fall down the dynamics in actuality, but builds the dynamics all on his own and individuates from them — another action entirely. Look that over. In other words, you artificialize the eight dynamics and parallel the eight dynamics with your own individuations, at the same time falling down the eight dynamics. You see this?

Well, you obviously have a field you can work in.

Two things can happen at the same time. There are the eight dynamics. A person draws more and more into self, and then conceives self to be something else and goes into a look-into-it — a look-into-self — an introversion. At the same time he's doing this, he is setting up beings to be, you see? He's setting up these beings and abandoning them. And they're still alive. And he becomes a composite.

Female voice: Yeah. I can but. . .

Now, it's necessary to understand the difference between self-individuation (the setting up of valences and the abandoning of them) and falling down the line of the dynamics. It's necessary to tell these two apart. Because the first one I mentioned might be anything — it has terrific randomness, it's anything you ran into, it's anything you decided to copy, it's anything you invented out of whole cloth and made. You said one fine day, "I'm going to be the idol, Baal." And one day you start speaking, a few thousand years later, in a rather brassy fashion — you can't understand it. You set up some sort of a living idol, don't you see, and then you fell away from it while still endowing the thing with life. And then one day you accidentally mock it all up again by some restimulation, or somebody mentions it to you — it's your mechanism, but they turned it on — and you find yourself speaking in a rather cavernous, brassy voice, and you say, "Where did that come from?"

You might ask yourself this — I'm not auditing you, but you might ask yourself this — what are you looking at? What is that field?

Your innocence at this moment is not merely appalling but is actual. You are yourself, and there was another being. It's just by consideration that this occurs, but it isn't that you are faking it. There's no fakery about it. You did make another being, and it is now another being activated by you, but it has a life and a will of its own.

Female voice: It's like darkness, as in night.

Now, it was only necessary to undo the accidental closure between the other being and self to undo the other being. Introversion — it is an inflow universe. It only became necessary to have the exact correct process, which undid the closure and the introversion, for you to take over all these things and blow your own chain of individuations.

Yeah. It's darkness in night. What are you doing?

Now, we ask, how did the eight dynamics fall apart? How did you ever go downhill on these things?

Female voice: I'm looking at darkness . . .

Well, funny part of it is, nobody else ever pushed you downhill on these things. Nobody else did it to you — for the excellent reason is they weren't in communication with you. They couldn't have done it to you. But you, setting up your own beings and images and personalities and then disassociating yourself from them, then brought about, in a secondary fashion, the fall away on the eight dynamics. Do you see that? Two actions went on at the same time. But you were unconscious of falling away on the eight dynamics. You were much more concerned with getting away from the monsters you had just set up to devour you.

Yeah, but is the darkness — does it exist? Or is it — I mean — does it exist in the physical universe? Or does it exist in the mental universe? Where does it exist? Where is this darkness?

So as you — as you pulled away and individuated from your own creations, the fall away occurred on the eight dynamics. You began to have more and more an individualized approach. Your protest against your own creations — which were no longer your own creations and no longer under your control — was such that you decided not to create. And so we have creativeness coming down the line as a common denominator.

Female voice: It's in the — it's in the mental universe.

Now, in that all you had to do was to be in the old individuation in order to take its life back from it or blow it up, then, keeping things from going away or pushing things in on self, of course, undid the mechanical principle and broke down the individuated barriers. And, therefore, as we break these barriers down, of old individuations, we simply have a person walking up to the top of the eighth dynamic, anyhow. We don't have to do anything about putting him on top of the eighth dynamic, then, except to knock out his own interferences with his own being there.

It's in the mental universe.

I call to your attention that we do not have to get somebody in some far clime or in some lost age to suddenly appear in the auditing room and do something in order to clear a preclear. This is very fortuitous. But it tells us, more importantly, that you must have done it in the first place because you can, sitting there in the auditing chair, undo it. Do you see? And we know enough about ownership and authorship, and know that things do not vanish unless the proper authorship is assigned to them. If we don't have the proper ownership of something, it won't disappear. Just misown something if you want it to get good and hefty.

Female voice: Yeah.

And in view of the fact that the individual walks up the line on his own actions alone, we see, then, that he must have been the owner and, earlier, must have created all of the mechanisms which are suppressing him. Well, it's very remarkable that he would do himself in to that degree. And we can explain this with problems and games, and explain it in a lot of fashions, but the truth of the matter is, he actually has undone himself. That is what is remarkable. He has actually cut his own throat. And the funny part of it is, he really didn't want to do it. There's no stage of the game where he did not think it was, not a game but necessary to cut his own throat. The interchanges of ideas made him feel that it was necessary for him to take these steps and moves.

It's mind.

When you get down into the criminal capacities, why, we get the greatest oddity in the world: The criminal always thinks his crimes are necessary. You could reason with him ad nauseam, and he would still cling to the total belief that his crimes were necessary. Pretty Boy Floyd, when he killed a policeman, decades ago (and he was one of the gaudier killers of the Prohibition era) — in jail explained to the reporters how he was just an innocent boy trying to get along and that he had to do it and so forth. Cop looked in the car, and he shoved a gun in the cop's belly and pulled the trigger: He "had to do it." Well, it seems rather extreme.

Female voice: Yeah.

But not only in a criminal strata — in an upper strata we have certain ideas concerning our conduct toward others and so on, and a thetan operates on rather a high ethical sense. And once he has given his word to help or cooperate, his word is his bond because his word is his postulate. Do you see that? So after a while, why, he gets this cause and effect cycle going and busily hangs himself.

Sure?

It is such a confusing problem that it is very remarkable to find any order in it at all. That is the miracle that's happened. Why an individual should have victimized himself to this degree is easily explained but will forever remain a mystery because — don't overlook this fact — he is a victim.

Female voice: It doesn't light up.

And that's the one thing where you can go astray as an auditor. You could say, "Well, he did it all to himself because he himself can undo it under my auditing and, therefore, he is guilty or to blame."

You sure?

No, he is not guilty or to blame; he merely did it all himself. Get the difference? He thought it was necessary to do all these things. And probably it was. But he is trapped. It does hurt. He is in awful condition.

Female voice: Not absolutely. I presume it.

And it's all very well to say, "Well, the condition can't be very important because now we can undo it." Ooh no, that is not the case. It is the most remarkable thing that ever happened that we can undo it. And short of that, there is nothing else known that will. Even death is merely another individuation.

You presume it?

A thetan had built, with the help of his friends, a trap that not — was not merely uncomfortable, but, not only himself, but nobody else could escape from. And you could theorize on this endlessly. But it turns out to be a mechanical fact that it is a trap, that he is trapped and there is nothing else anywhere that will set him free. And it's merely remarkable that this has occurred.

Female voice: Yeah.

Now, his descent down the Tone Scale is, of course, from the point man the god to man the animal. That's his descent down the line. And it exactly parallels the eight dynamics. And tone parallels the eight dynamics precisely. And we never before — we knew these were interconnected — we never before had a positive relationship between these two things.

It's not the inside of your skull, is it?

Now, his ability to outflow without impeding himself from outflowing, his ability to assume higher tones is all dependent on his ability to take ownership and authorship of everything that happened to him. But, doing that, all by itself, as a postulate, will not cure him. It'll kill him.

Female voice: Well, if I get outside the skull, it's still dark.

The mechanical activity in which you're engaged is the only one known at this time. I know some other ways of clearing people — I know some other ways of clearing people, but all of these ways, one way or another, handle the same factors as we're engaged upon — they handle this individuation, they handle this descent from the eighth to the first, they handle the Tone Scale and they bring about the same regaining of states.

It is?

A great deal of theory can be placed along this line. We can read or write a great deal of philosophy along this line, all of which is quite true. But we can ask this burning question of any of it: Is it effective? And, of course, as some later age may say about me — is, I was crazy because I believed in being effective; some later age might have this as an entirely different approach.

Female voice: It's dark inside the skull. It's also dark outside.

I read some columnist the other day who said that he saw no reason for anybody ever to be practical about anything. Well, that's his viewpoint. But I was trained, you might say, or believe or work in an entirely different field. And that is, when you do something, do it well. And when you engage in an activity, well, above all things, be effective in that activity.

All right. And so therefore there is a field condition of some sort or another.

And we, right now, are being as effective as we know how to be.

Female voice: Yeah. But I can — as I say, I can light it up.

Thank you.

All right.

Female voice: If I put a light facsimile into it, it's light.

Light it up.

Female voice: That's all.

There's a question here. Sooner or later — sooner or later this will have to be hit. But just in the process of doing Step 6 in mock-ups it's liable to get hit awful sudden, see? It's a cinch that this would have to happen sooner or later. The field not necessarily will have to be cleared up, but the field will have to get clear. You get the idea?

Male voice: Right.

And that's either done on just the processes of keeping things from going away . . .

One of the wildest things I've seen in a long time was a fellow who had an invisible field. It was a nice, innocent invisible field that wasn't bothering anybody. And he could put up mock-ups and they'd get invisible rather fast. The field ate them up — a hungry field. But all of a sudden he was asked to mock up a woman — this was experimental, and it was a very significant object — and he was asked to mock up a woman and keep her from going away. At which time the entire field turned upside down, went coal black, and black blankets went flying all over the room and battered down the walls, according to him. (I didn't notice them doing that, but he said they did.) And, activity occurred with suddenness.

Now we, by the way, had a case that had a totally black field. And within the space of twenty-four hours, why, it turned from black to clear to gone, just on keeping things from going away.

We've also taken a case that had a totally black field and we specialized on the black field and gotten rid of it. And I'm afraid it's not much of a problem.

Good.

Yes?

Female voice: What is it that determines the ability of an auditor if it isn't his case level?

What determines the ability of an auditor if it's not his case level? Well, in the first place, ability is only impeded. Ability can only be impeded. Ability on a third dynamic evidently can be an intellectual breed of cat, and it only requires that he attain certain self-discipline in order to handle it.

Now, I didn't say that this was a sweepingly true statement. I said an auditor below a certain case level couldn't be an auditor. And evidently the level at which a person could be trained is a sufficient level for the individual to handle a third dynamic situation.

Now, what determines the ability of it? Now, he has the ability. It is largely monitored by willingness — willingness.

You'll run into this unwillingness to be Clear. You know, you'll learn that unwillingness to do anything. You can crack through it today because it's still there. All the chips are on our side. But sometimes it'll take some cracking up.

But where an auditor is concerned, in the first place, he volunteered, which immediately selected out all the people who were — mostly, most of the people who were unwilling to help others.

So what determines it?

Natural selection — he's here.

Female voice: Yes.

Okay?

Female voice: Well, I know a lot of people who think that they want to help people. They are willing. They go out of their way to help people. But they're doing the wrong things. They're not helping them.

Well, that's right. But are they trained?

Female voice: No.

And are they trainable? That makes the difference.

Female voice: Some of them might be.

Right. But the difference between the trainableness of them and the untrainableness of them would establish the lack with — if they had the ability to do something about it.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, I thought I had pretty good mock-ups. In fact I was rather proud of them. And during this processing I've had a couple of facsimiles turn on that put anything I could self-determinedly make to shame, in clarity and color and vividness, and so forth, and . . . What cooks?

There's a hump — the hump characteristic. A person, as he runs the drills to keep things from going away and so forth, is actually patching up his bank.

Male voice: What?

For quite a while he's patching up his bank.

Now, I do something that I haven't put in Intensive Procedure. And I was thinking about it the other night, that I'd better put it in the next written rendition of the thing.

There are certain things you do which are preparatory to auditing. Now, one of those things is quite interesting — but this is merely to give the preclear an index. It's not therapeutic; it's simply to tell him how well off he is or isn't. And you run him on the track just like an old Dianetic auditor and you have him find a couple of pleasure moments. Have him think of one and then you ask him to close his eyes and you run him back to it just like we used to do — us old guys back in 1950, see? And you run him back to it and have him inspect it and have him notice how solid it is or isn't. If he can't find it at all, well, you know what the score is. On a pc that's just walked in, you know what the score is. You know that he's below perception of bank. All right.

Now, you have him look at this at the end of the first Step 6 session. You'd had him do this before you did anything else with him, you see? And then at the end of the first Step 6 session, you have him look at these two same pleasure moments again. (I'm talking about Clear Procedure, the book Clear Procedure, Step 6. It's Step 5 in your Intensive Procedure.)

Now, he'll look at these things again. And they either won't be there still or they'll be more solid and more brilliant.

Now, we go on and run another Step 6. This is the basic test — how we got to clearing people, see? We run another one of these keep-it-from-going-away mock-up propositions — another whole session — and we ask him once more to take a look at these two pleasure moments we spotted before we audited him very much. Well, if he was below mock-ups, all of a sudden, they're there.

Now, we run another session and we again have him inspect these two pleasure moments. Now, I can tell you — any Dianetic auditor can tell you that if we just ran him to them and ran him off of them, they would actually toughen up a little bit and then they'd get weaker because we're, to some degree, erasing them. And the natural course of human events — if we weren't processing him on Step 6, we'd run this just as a control, and we'd run him back to two pleasure moments. By the time we'd done it five or six times, we'd have other pleasure moments or we would have something different, here, entirely. But while we're running our mock-ups on him, these things are actually going to get more and more brilliant, more and more solid.

This was the kickoff. This was what tipped the thetan's hand. As he improved his ability to mock up, his facsimiles improved.

So who was making them? Obviously, he was. And this was the tip-off to our whole Clear activity and attack at this time. All right.

Now, this hump mechanism is the point where the bank itself becomes unbearably solid. And he's not yet coping with it. But that bank is just as solid as can be. Well, boy, think of it. If he's stuck in a tonsillectomy and you're running Step 6 on him, why, brother, those instruments are going to get more solid than any piece of steel you ever saw. And the pain is liable to become quite intense because that's getting more real than real.

Now, he will wind up with the ability to put up a mock-up that is more brilliant, more solid, more real you might say, than the physical universe around him. And he can then choose a subject off the track and mock it up. He has to mock it up himself. But he gets this terrific brilliance. But before he learns that he's mocking them up himself, these things become very brilliant and very solid. And that happens a little while before he finds out subjectively and for real — he can know this intellectually and still find it out subjectively — that he himself is mocking them up. And, boy, they get mighty brilliant. They get mighty glary if you're really fishing around looking for them.

Well, the reason I keep running people back and having them take a look at the same two mock-ups is just to find out how the fellow is progressing. And eventually I take him back and show him these couple of mock-ups.

And he'll say, "Well, there's nothing there, but I can put something there if you want me to."

And you say, "Put something there."

And he says, "Wow!"

Maybe one of them was a flower garden or something like that. Well, man, he can put a flower garden there the like of which he never saw, you see? And it's big and good and solid, and more solid than with his eyes he sees the room. Now, that's the phenomenon you're running into.

Male voice: The answer is to just keep on processing.

Oh yes — Step 6. Grit your teeth. Carry it through.

Female voice: Are you going to speak more about time in this course?

Oh, I don't know. I think you, in this course, are going to find out more about things than I'll tell you, just by processing.

Yes?

Male voice: Would you recap on today's tools on taking consecutive individuations apart?

Well, as a person is able to reach further and further away from what he was considering the identity he was in: he's in identity A, let us say, he can reach out to identity B and then C and then D, and they're further and further from him — in other words, further and further removed in space and in time — he is more and more capable of taking these things apart, more and more capable of surviving without them.

Now, you're reversing the course of individuation. At one time he was out there at perimeter D, you see? And then he started falling back and he got to C and he got to B and he got to A, you see? And now he's just his current identity and no other although the others are all still alive. All right.

Second male voice: It seems like that aligns itself awfully nicely with the element of affinity as a consideration of distance and also the Axiom definitions.

Mm-hm.

Second male voice: And from that viewpoint, it seemed a lot simpler.

Yes, it is. That help? All right.

Well, we've had it here and we were already a little bit late. You think you're getting anyplace?

Audience: Yep. Yes.

All right. Remember to get them under control and then run them on the mock-up processes. But if you don't get them under control, you'll never get anyplace. You understand that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Okay. Thank you.