ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 08 OF 20
[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Thank you.

Going to talk to you about Creative Processes.

Tonight, I haven't got very much to talk about. But I did want to talk to you something about a subject which I haven't even added up in my own head or in my own environment – which, of course, makes me an authority.

Cycle of action is create, create-create-create, no create.

An authority is somebody who knows nothing loudly. It's an absolute requisite – absolute requisite – for an authority to know less about a subject than anybody else, more importantly. And the subject must always be a subject about which nothing is known.

Now, you say, „What happens? Where's it go?“

To be a real authority you would have to pick up a subject which was nonextant, you see, and become quite resounding on that subject. Then you would be a real authority, particularly if you said nothing ever. A real good authority simply sneers quietly, whatever is said. That is very, very effective – very effective. It's a tactic I recommend to you if you ever get in there with a medico or something of the sort and you don't know what to do, why, just sneer effectively. You know, sort of... like that, you know? Just a touch of...

Well, if there's no postulate in the creation for its continuance, if there's no time connected with it, it doesn't go anywhere. There is no place for it to go. Now, basically, the reason why is there was nothing there in the first place, except your consideration.

Now, this is a subject – about which I'm going to speak here – about which I know very, very little, very little. Because very few things are actually well organized, to know anything about organization is therefore practically an impossibility since practically nobody has ever seen any. You see? But you could easily become an authority about organization because there is apparently such a thing in the world as organization.

Therefore, if it does evolve that an individual creates over a long time, he actually has to continue the creation. He has to continue the creation. In other words, he has to create it, create it, create it, create it, create it. All the time he has his attention on it, regardless of how many vias, he's having to put it there, put it there, put it there, put it there. And what is that but a re-creation?

And I didn't realize that organization didn't exist, actually, until 1950. And I noticed then that it didn't exist with an exclamation point! Now, I'd rather suspected its existence before, but I had never totally suspected the exclamation point. The fact of no organization in 1950 was quite interesting, and I thought it was something peculiar to the people and organization with which we were dealing. I assigned it to us personally. I couldn't look far enough to blame it way over there. So I said, "Well, the thing to do about these organizations..." I said, "The thing to do, obviously, is to hire some experts" – see, hire some experts. And then we really did go to hell!

He can say by consideration — if he has the former consideration that he can do this — he can say, „That mock-up will now stay there.“ But remember, he had to have the former consideration „When I say a mock-up is going to stay there, it continues to be created.“

We had one of the fanciest managers that ever managed anything. He had been a howling success. I suppose the people that he had managed for before are still howling. Now, we had press agentry and promotion experience which had been so valuable in Hollywood that Warner Brothers practically collapsed the moment that this man left their promotion department. We had skill, but unfortunately without an exclamation point.

Now, that's what survival amounts to in almost everybody's bank. It says when it lives it lives; when it goes on living it goes on living, and that's the postulate and that's it.

I'm sure these gentlemen could have worked, had they known what an organization was. Well, some people are very fast. They pick up their cognitions rapidly. Some people are capable of understanding a cognition when they see it and so on. I run comm lags myself, and it sometimes takes me a little longer to find out that I don't know about something or that I do know about something, or do recognize it. But when I do – or don't – I'm honest about it. Perhaps that singular difference there makes up something for the comm lag.

Well, create, then, is a common denominator of many things. Why does one have to create again? He has to create again because of the postulate time. And that is the fact that we have a different universe every given instant. So we have to create something in this new universe at any given instant in order to have anything there in this new universe.

But it's taken me about six years to find out thoroughly that man doesn't know anything about organization and that there is a camouflaged hole there that has been filled up rather adequately by experts. And nobody can glibly tell you a definition for an organization. Nobody can rapidly give you the size and shape and general pattern for an organization. They'll give you some patterns, but are they for an organization? See, that's a little bit different.

In any given instant, then, we mean that we have a disappearance. Well, we don't have a disappearance. We have a nonexistence. People ask the question, where did the mock-up go? It didn't go anywhere. And that is what is so puzzling. See, it didn't go anywhere. What happened to yesterday's universe? Well, it didn't go anywhere. It is not waiting anywhere at all. It was put there to last for a certain period of time and this, then, didn't require it to go anywhere. It's only going to last as a consideration for a certain period of time. Therefore, it no longer lasts. It just isn't there. It doesn't go anywhere. To go somewhere infers that it's continuing to last elsewhere. And every case you'll ever process has a louse-up right on that point. Where did yesterday go? Well, it didn't have any place to go to. Yesterday quit.

Now, what belies this: we have such organizations as General Motors and Westinghouse. And these are running concerns. They do get things done. There's Boeing Aircraft and big, big companies. They do build things; they do ship things away, and so on. And obviously these companies have people in them that know about organization – obviously, or they wouldn't run.

„Where am I going to store all these mock-ups I made yesterday?“ Well now, a fellow can start doing that. And therefore, every time he creates today he has to create yesterday too.

Well, I say obviously they know all about organization until you go to work for them, and then you get another view. You say, "How do these airplanes ever fly?" "How is it that electric motors made by this concern ever run at all?" We talk to their personnel and find this personnel caught up in some kind of an incomprehensible paper chain which seems to run this way: They originate a despatch which comes to them for answering.

I spoke to you yesterday about the time track. In every given instant the time track has to be re-created all over again. Because yesterday didn't go anyplace, we have this interesting mechanism, then, of storing it. Storing yesterday via a time track. When you look at it again you have to create it.

This is very common in the United States Navy, for instance. My good friend and one-time close pal Robert Heinlein, the science- fiction writer, was in Philadelphia and he was in the aircraft factory. They pulled in all the science-fiction writers they could lay their hands on during the war – they even tried to pull me in – to Project Space Opera. And they were trying to design various items and units, and so on, out of science fiction into the world of reality. And naturally, the boys all dived back on the track and picked up already-conceived patterns and presented them. Unfortunately, we didn't have the materials with which to build most of these things. But it's interesting that the suit that is worn today by jet-plane pilots was designed by that unit. It was designed as a spacesuit by that unit, and it is worn today by jet pilots.

Anything you are looking at was created in that instant. Got that? Anything you are looking at was created in that instant that you are looking at it. The illusion occurs this way: We create by vias so that we think we are looking at something that was, that became a now. But we have vias that mock this up.

Many other bric-a-brac such as the satellites that we hear about every once in a while (not the Red satellites but the pink ones that Dr. Eisenstein is going to throw up there to confuse us)... Anyhow, other things came out of this project. But what mainly came out of the project is illustrated by this little story about Robert Heinlein.

Now, we speak a lot about the destruction of engrams. All that an engram is, is a re-creation of an extant situation by a certain pattern. But the pattern is just by a series of vias which exist in now. It's the most fantastic testimony to what a thetan knows and doesn't know that he knows, that he can create things he knows nothing about all over again and then find out things from them that amaze him.

He heard that there was somebody in the country that knew about rocket-orifice pressures – how big a pressure you got at what velocity for what opening. He heard that this was known, that there was an expert somewhere in the country that could give him these figures. So he originated a communication. Of course, it was a naval-aircraft factory, and so he originated the communication, put it through the proper channels and got all the endorsements. It went out to Chicago and came back into Washington and got here and there and so forth, and eventually he discovered the name of the expert: it was Robert A. Heinlein.

So this thing called a time track is to a marked degree a trick. That which you perceive was made at the instant you perceived it, to this degree: One's perception is more limited than the creative sphere. And that's another little law that has to go down there. Perception is usually less than the created sphere and is never more. Got it? It's usually less than the created sphere.

Well, organization is an interesting thing. It's interesting enough that if you ask a preclear simply to mock up an organization, he inevitably mocks up confusions. It's one of the ways of running confusions, is just to say to the preclear, "Mock up an organization. Mock up an organization." You just keep this up for three or four hours – somebody that worked for Philco or somebody – and he line-charges. I don't know why he line- charges, but he does! There must be something in those organizations which belie the word organization.

In other words, because you can see Keokuk does not mean that you also didn't create Los Angeles and New York. Just because you're only looking at Keokuk doesn't mean that you left Los Angeles and New York out of your creative action. You created Los Angeles, New York and Keokuk and only looked at Keokuk. People think of that happy day when they were children and only thought that the home front yard, they say, was there; and there was nothing beyond that front yard at all. But you tell them where Germany is, and they say it's over that little range of hills. Why do they think it's so close? Well, that's because in failing to create it properly, they create it in the wrong place. It's quite interesting though, if you took them to Germany they would see Germany. See, that becomes fascinating. That's the bug. How come they can see Germany?

All I am seeking to do here is to show you that we are starting from scratch. It is very seldom that one can work away from virgin ground, but we seem to be doing that just now. We are starting with known data. A word, organization, exists. See, that's known data. The rest of it's wilderness. You see, we look out this way and this way, we see nothing but desert stretching in all directions without even wrecked Egyptian tanks on them.

Therefore, a thetan tells you one thing while he's doing something else. This is obvious.

Well anyhow, we look over this, and we find out then that we are in that comfortable state of mind of having a tremendous amount of elbow room. That's always a nice thing to have when you're starting out on a subject.

Now, what — what do we find as a common denominator of processing, then? Creativeness. Creativeness. Creativeness has a scale which begins with lies. Lies are the lowest level of creativeness.

Well, is there anything to know about this subject at all? One must always ask this question: Is there anything to know, or must one invent something to know about it? Well, actually there is a great deal to know about the subject, and actually it seems possible that an organization can exist. It seems possible that an organization could be defined. It seems possible that the running of an organization could happen, not by accident, but by plan. And it seems possible that one could ferret out these various rules of organization so that one was not always running from the general's latest idea on how the organization ought to run.

The next scale above lies is, of course, the creation of a thought. Just plain creation of a thought, independent of other thoughts.

That's awfully embarrassing to an army at all times, and it's equally embarrassing to an electrical plant or something to have an executive vice president who is issuing communiques consistently and continually about the subject of organization modification when none has been built in the first place. You see, that's very hard to do: to modify a nonexistent object.

The next level above that is the creation of a mechanic. But people run them in reverse: They have to be able to create the mechanical adequately before they can create a thought. That's just the way it stacks up.

The U.S. Navy has been modifying a copy of the British Navy now since 1772, or whenever it was formed. And it's been doing a very, very good job of modification. Someday they'll wake up – oh, any day now they'll find out they don't even have a navy now, see? Actually they're over in the Pentagon building at this time, and so on. They've practically modified themselves out of existence with their communication lines.

The number of people who create thoughts are very few. H.L. Mencken, just before his death, wrote quite a dissertation on this. And his opinion of the ability of man to think an original thought was poor.

For instance, they have a terrific file system. This is the most brilliant file system I have ever read. Gorgeous. The manual to operate it is about that thick. It's to operate a navy file system. It's just gorgeous. You never saw such order, such neatness. Every number in that system has significance, oh boy! Wow! Man, are you impressed – right up to the moment you walk up to a naval yeoman and say, "Uh... son, could you let me see the personnel report sheets for last month?" Well, of course the file system fails at that instant. But it's very, very pretty – very pretty there in that big, thick book – very pretty.

But for a man to create a thought, he evidently — if he's fairly low down the line — has to have the idea that he can create a mass or a space or something. So the creation of masses, spaces, particles, so on, is actually below the ability to create a thought.

I like that file system. It is the neatest and best plan not put into action that I have ever inspected. Of course, it's a court- martial offense not to head your letters out of that file book. Oh, I am sure that men can be court-martialed, even shot. I think it's perfectly all right to run away from the enemy, give admirals a lot of lip, wear your stripes backwards, or almost anything else. But don't omit those right numbers there at the top of that endorsement or at the top of that letter. That's pretty serious. That shows a disrespect for the Bureau of Naval Personnel. Very serious thing.

You see, one gets starved for masses, spaces and particles and believes that these have in them a number of thoughts. They believe these things have in them a number of thoughts. And so they take the thoughts out of these masses. They remove the thoughts already extant in the masses of yesterday. Of course, they have to put them there to remove them, but that's perfectly all right. They believe that these thoughts came from the masses.

Well, there are several numbers and letters in a line. Very hard to memorize. I know I can't recall a single one offhand. But when the numbers get up to about that big, why, it makes a cross-file system the like of which you've never... See, every number in it means a different folder or subject.

They develop philosophies. Man is fantastic. He develops a philosophy like dialectic materialism. He says every thought comes from the collision of two forces. (Two or more forces he should have said.) By the way, that's not even scientifically well written. You know? I mean, it has extraordinaries. Like why two forces? Why not three forces? You know? That kind of nonsense.

Now, you take officer's raincoats. Nobody could ever have such a thing as "officer's raincoats," but you look in the file manual, it's there! "Officer's raincoats: OA52." They got you, haven't they? Now, you wouldn't think there would be "officer's raincoats – torn," would you? But you turn over here to "torn" and you'll find it's OA52-3.

Of course, somebody with a scarcity of masses treasures the masses. And he says, „These masses are really something.“ And he rather deifies them. And he says, „When you bump these two masses together, of course, you get a thought out of them; that shows you that they're God.“

Now, you wouldn't think there was "officer's raincoats – torn; belonging to reserve officers," would you? They got you. When you get the number about that long you've got the history of the United States!

And the only difference between Roman Catholicism and nuclear physics is that the Roman Catholic has an easier idea getting some thoughts into space. In nuclear physics we get thoughts into space by banging together masses. But there's no less deity involved. There is no less a worshipful attitude toward these masses that give up these beautiful reactions.

Now, I'm sure somebody in the Navy Department keeps a file system of some sort because – I'll just show you how good they are. I'll show you how good they are. You know, there's a lot of cavil about this. They say that after World War II and the Korean War that they lost a lot of personnel. Well, that was actually World War I they did that. A chap was ordered up to the Brooklyn Shipbuilding Company, and he was up there until 1936 before somebody found him in the files and sent him orders to tell him that World War I was over. That's actually happened. They just skipped him, you know, and he stayed on duty as an inspector of nonexistent ships. And nobody ever could order him out because they couldn't find his name in the files, you see; they'd lost the files.

Every once in a while they turn around and tell you, if they're not watching themselves too carefully or if they've had a drink, „Isn't God wonderful!“ You know, they turn the reactor on and let it react for a while, and they turn around to you, „Isn't God wonderful!“ Now, they got tired of having God in space and put him back in idol form. That's the truth of the matter.

But I'm sure somebody keeps a file, because I myself have been solicited for a Tommy gun. A rather unusual thing to be solicited for, but they knew my name and they knew where I was located. Isn't that terrific? I mean, it's really phenomenal. I mean, they did; they knew my name; they knew the item that was missing and so forth. Of course, it was the wrong navy, but that didn't make any difference at all. It really was the wrong navy. It was "L. R. Hubbard, Royal Australian Navy, Lieutenant Commander," I think it was; something like that. "Please return to the United States Navy the sub-Thompson machine gun which was borrowed from the USS Chicago" – that was the wrong ship, but that didn't matter; it was the Travis – "Please return it," and so on. Now, how they got onto this, I don't know, because the Travis got sunk, you see? And I don't know how they got into this, but somebody keeps a file! That, I'm sure.

Any race does this eventually. It gets tired of looking into space and ruining all of its havingness and puts their gods into masses. Actually, probably idolatry is much more healthy from a standpoint of body masses than a spatial religion. You got something real solid, you can walk up to it and lean on it, you know, and you can say, „Oh boy. Yeah, I know God heard me now; there he is.“ See?

Now, you look at these numbers up on these letters and you have, actually, the total concept of organization normally existing, plus one thing, a command chart. No service, no electrical company's office, nobody, should be without one of these command charts. I'll show you what they look like. They're square – I mean, an oblong, a rectohedron or something, because everybody on them at the top is pretty thick. And you have written across the top here, it says Board of Directors, or Joint Chiefs of Staff, or it says something at the top here. It's very impressive. That's in bigger letters, see? And then you have two little dingle-dangles that drop down from this and other signs are appended to that. And one of them says Secretary of Navy, and the other one says the War Department or something. And then this dingle-dangles down into, well, other boards, you see: Bureau of Naval Personnel, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff, so forth. And this dingle-dangles down to another thing that says Regiments or something, you see, Fleets or something like that. And then this goes down to Commanding Officers Of. You got that. That's pretty smart. And then this goes down to Officers Of, and this goes down to Petty Officers Of, and this goes down to the army and the navy, see – rank and file, see?

Savage people worship rocks, and so forth. And that's pretty low- toned and pretty barbaric when they get down to worshipping rocks. But when you get down to worshipping rocks you can't see, you've got the modern atomic physicist.

That's how they do this. That's how they do this. And you've got this beautiful... You know, it's... well, it's beautiful! You never saw the like of these things. They're pretty. You know, they're usually done on mahogany, Philippine mahogany, something like that, you see them. Or they're done in great things: you open up a manual and you keep unfolding, and you unfold them down like this, and you fold them up like this, and there it says across the top Joint Chiefs of Staff, see? Boy, is that... Tsk! That's it! We've got something here. We know who's boss around here. Obvious, it's the Joint Chiefs of Staff; they're boss.

So anyway, these boys actually are copartners in the creation of any given instant. And the instants which were, just aren't. It's too simple though, of course, you see? It's — have to make it more complicated. But the instants which were, aren't: They didn't go anywhere.

A private wants to go on leave, he knows where he is supposed to go. He isn't supposed to go up there at all; that's too high for him. He's supposed to go see these people right above him, see – his petty officers. And the petty officers, they're supposed to go see the officer. The officer is supposed to go see the commanding officer. The commanding officer is supposed to go see the Fleet. And the Fleet is supposed to go see the Chief of Naval Operations. Chief of Naval Operations is supposed to go over here to the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Navy is supposed to go over here to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You see, that's the way it goes. Got it? Yeah. And then they say whether or not he can have some leave.

Now, if you understand this clearly, then you understand what is wrong with your preclear is his ability to create. Ability to create thoughts, his ability to create particles and masses in terms of the bank and certainly, observably, he is very deficient in being able to create walls that are as big as and solid as the room walls.

Now... All right. Now, they forward this back, see, and it goes like this: the Joint Chiefs of Staff up here, and then it goes down to the Navy Department here, and then it of course goes over to the Chief of Naval Operations, then it goes over here to Fleet, and that goes down here to captains, and the captains go to the officers, and the officers go to petty officers, and they get down to the man, and he knows he can't have any leave. See, it's simple! See, the whole thing works out. It's obvious, this whole thing works out.

I told a preclear one time — just making an experiment — something that would appall you, I'm sure. You speak of the Auditor's Code, a break this bad, you see, malice aforethought, can happen in the world of research but you actually have to add about four or five more clauses onto it before the break can be conceived to be big enough. You see?

You think I was just indulging in some mockery, something like that, but I wasn't; that's a command chart. It says who's boss. And if you didn't have one of those things the whole place would go to pieces, you know that! Nobody would know who to salute. Nobody would know who to send the paychecks to, for whom to... Well, nobody would know! That's all. You see? I mean, you'd just be lost, and maybe it'd be a good thing.

He was making mock-ups, and he was doing rather well. I was testing the action of mocking up barriers. And he kept saying he was mocking up barriers, and he kept saying he was mocking up barriers. And I finally said to him, „You're sure you're mocking up barriers now?“ I said, „Where are you mocking them up?“ And he pointed to a line out in the middle of the floor and so forth. And I walked over and patted the line and felt around it and passed my hand through it and so on. Pulled Steves's trick that he pulled back there in '53. Kept telling preclears to mock up a Coke bottle, and then say, „I can't see it.“ You know? This was to encourage them to make more solid mock-ups. And I told this preclear I couldn't feel that wall. I couldn't feel it. I didn't think he was doing well. Asked him if he was sick or something. And got him to struggling to make the walls thicker and heavier and thicker and heavier. And I finally said, „You know, I don't think we better go on with the session. Maybe you need some rest. Maybe you should go take a rest and we might try this again tomorrow.“

Because the only thing difficult with this command chart is the moment the guns start going, the little dingle-dangles vanish. They just go missing. See, they... Before the first sentry takes off – before the first sentry takes off not to confront the enemy – these things disappear amongst the boxes. So you have Joint Chiefs of Staff standing in the – well, they never stand in a first line – but you have Joint Chiefs of Staff, or something, sitting someplace else. They're not any longer on the chart. I know; I've looked on the chart. You have troops down at the bottom of one of these command charts. You can talk to one of these charts by the hour and it won't shoot. Won't do a thing.

He says, „Why? What's the matter with you?“

And I've been in the interesting position of sending a message up through one of those things for a very important piece of information that should have gone right on up to the top, since I was operating a comm center. It was very interesting. Just as in any company or something, somebody says, "A machine is broken down. All production will now be delayed for the next ninety days." He'd want to report that, you know. He'd think it'd be a good thing. Somebody up at the top is liable to notice the whole factory isn't running or something.

I said, „I can't feel these walls. I don't think they're there.“

And so I tried to report this through one of these chains of command, and I found out that I was really getting there. Only they knew that that particular post and area had been wiped out and taken a long time before, so they never bothered to answer. I asked some chaps right here in Washington, I said, "Why didn't you ever reply to those despatches? What was the matter?"

He went into an awful decline. Isn't that odd? I was trying to find out why he went into a decline. He intended to pick an agreement and he picked a disagreement.

He says, "Well, you were wiped out a long time before that."

So he came in the next morning intending to pick a disagreement. We had a wonderful fight, and he felt much better. And we got on, and his mock-ups got right back to where they ought to have been. You see? I was trying to damage his mock-ups so that I could improve them again, and succeeded in doing so. I had him with mock-ups there that were fabulous, for him. He never saw such mockups. But he kept making them, by the way, on the basis: „Of course, you wouldn't think this is very much, but...“ Now, what is this whole mechanism of creation in terms of masses and spaces? It is conviction of existence. Conviction of existence. There are a number of postulates which go into this action of putting up a mock-up. But the basic postulate, of course, is „There it is!“ The next one is, is „I perceive it.“

And I says, "I was!" It was obvious. It was right there on his chart that those command channels didn't any longer exist.

Now, if you go around having a preclear saying, „I perceive it, I perceive it, I perceive it, I perceive it,“ why do the walls get stronger to him and heavier? Now, that is, then, a reverse perception. He was on an inversion. See, he'd said „I perceive it, I perceive it, I perceive it“ so hard and so furiously, so factually, he tried to be so convincing about having perceived it, that he started to drop out of the bottom on this whole basis of having perceived it. And the harder he says „I perceive it“ now, the less he perceives it. Why?

Well, the very funny part of it is, the moment that action was engaged, why, one found himself finally doing what I did: I picked up a telephone, called the Secretary of Navy. See, and I said, "I'm tired of this place. I'd like to leave."

The mechanism didn't work. He has lost on this mechanism too many times. He said, „I perceive it,“ and then nobody else agreed with him. He said, „I perceive it,“ and then something happened to it. Somebody else had a mock-up in front of it. Somebody was playing a joke on him or something of the sort. You see? Mix-ups of perception. But the perception was basically „I perceive it.“ However, your preclear doesn't go into all of these delicacies. He simply wants to put something up and see it. And this he does, and he needn't make an articulated postulate in order to do it.

And he said, "Yeah."

A thetan doesn't go around thinking „Now I will think a thought: Mm. I have thought a thought.“ No. He says — he doesn't have to think „Now I am going to put up a mass,“ and then put up a mass. He just — Mass. See? That's all there is to it. He doesn't really think „Now I am going to move my body's arm,“ and then put a postulate into the body's arm which then moves the body's arm, see? It's perfectly easy to make the postulate the action. See, not to confuse two things; I mean, that's the postulate, see? You could do that just as easily as the other way.

I said, "Yeah, I've got some important despatches. As a matter of fact, we've got enough despatches here to practically sink the Japanese navy if they had to carry them. There's a lot of traffic and stuff like that, and so forth."

You can get a guy so that he doesn't know whether he's walking on his head or his hands by simply asking him, „Just what do you tell your legs to get them to move?“ Of course, this is a lie! He doesn't ever tell his legs anything to get them to move. He simply says „Action,“ and he has an action.

So he sent his plane down and picked me up and flew me home. You think I'm just talking through my hat but that is exactly what happened. Everybody knew the phone systems were out, and everybody knew the command chart didn't exist anymore, so it was very easy to pick up a receiver and say, "Give me Washington." They wanted to know Washington where. I said, "Washington, DC." I said, "Give me the Secretary of Navy." I couldn't think of anybody else. That's quite a phone call from down in the South Pacific through, and you just think that doesn't exist.

Now, because he has to tell other people something before they do anything, he gets this confused with himself. And he believes he should tell himself something before he does something. And this is not at all true.

But then you think something else is wrong too. You think these command charts exist. Well, they exist on a piece of paper, but in actuality they are command charts and nothing else! That is all they are. And that's the first thing you want to know about organizations, is that they have command charts and that they are command charts and not communication charts! And when you try to put a communication through a command chart, you're in the soup, inevitably wind up in Campbell's chicken with noodles.

So therefore, any instantaneous reaction in front of his face in the engram bank is liable to surprise him. He doesn't consider himself capable of it. He doesn't say, „Now I am going to get an action,“ and get an action in front of his face. Instead of that — that isn't what happened — he simply has an action in front of his face which can exert considerable influence against the body, and this surprises him. He doesn't know that he's capable of this.

Now, obviously we have to know who's boss, but this is no reason at all why all channels should run through the bottleneck of the whole organization who is always the boss. Do you see that if we ran all communications through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if every officer in the South Pacific who was tired of being there and couldn't see any of his own people left anyhow, and was fairly suspicious that those snapping sounds in the air weren't bees, had simply picked up a telephone and had found an operator on the job, of all people, who was capable of putting in a transatlantic phone call and said, "I want to go home now, and I've got some despatches. Send me an airplane," and if every one of them had been given an airplane, you would have had that many Secretaries of Navy to take care of that many officers, you see? So it doesn't operate as a communication chart and it won't ever operate as a communication chart. And that is the first thing wrong with organizations, is they take a command chart and say it is a communication chart, and it's not.

Well, I don't know why he keeps this hidden from himself, except that it makes more game. But the funny part of it is, is an engram appears in front of somebody's face on the same basis that he moves his arm without telling it to do so. You might say it's a mass postulate. Quite amazing.

A communication chart doesn't even vaguely look like a command chart. Let me assure you, if the boss had to know everything there was going on in the organization you'd have no organization at all. It would make him so mad! The only possible survival an organization can have is just to keep as many communications as possible away from him. They bottleneck; he's arbitrary; he's not on the ground; he doesn't know the situation; he has policies he's executing which were originated in 1890. The best thing to do is just keep the show on the road, obviously, not follow a command chart. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Now, you can actually get somebody making these mass postulates, and he can get into much better shape. You can ask him such a question as „How much effort could you exert in moving that desk?“ You just run this as a process. „How much effort could you exert in moving that chair?“ „How much effort could you exert...?“ Not how much less effort, you know, but just how much effort, which makes him really go in the direction of more effort. „How much effort could you employ, now, in holding yourself to the floor?“

You start following a command chart, you start bottlenecking. Therefore, all initiative in the organization is destroyed. And if it is the purpose of a command chart to destroy all initiative, then it should also be used always as a communication chart. The command chart of an organization, when it becomes the communication chart of an organization, results in the absence of all initiative throughout the entire organization; everybody is being policed. And that is just about 99 percent of what is wrong with most existing organizations, is they have no knowledge of organization.

Now, he'll think he's running out things. He isn't running anything out. He is exercising his ability just like the strongman exercises his ability to appear interesting in front of this huge audience. A strongman takes a five-hundred-pound dumbbell and — although he, after the show, picks it up and just tosses it lightly on the truck — in front of the audience, he picks up that five-hundred-pound barbell with the grunts and groans that would give a giant a hernia. Man! And sweat runs off of him, and he trembles, and he poises himself just so. And finally gets it up to a half-lift and then finally shoots it to a whole-lift. And boy, this is really dramatic! It's easy for him to do it. Now he's trying to make it harder to do so that he'll get more appreciation.

Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this. A man is put on a job to do a thing. He should have a stable datum for what he's supposed to do. If he has a stable datum for what he is and what he's supposed to do and what he's supposed to be, and if he really has that as a stable datum, then he will be able to handle all confusion that approaches him. He'll have comm lines. He will act. But if that individual does not have a stable datum then he is not a communication terminal. He will stop no communications, and the command chart gets pushed into being.

There isn't anything in the universe that is hard to do. But nothing that is easy to do gets applause. So the communication formula enters into the basis of „if you want attention you'd better make it difficult,“ and that is where we get our basic complexity. That's why things must be more complicated. The strongman effort.

If every sailor put on a post, or every soldier put on a post, or every mechanic and laborer in a plant was put on a post and couldn't hold that post or decide for that post, then naturally, he would fall back on his next superior. And if that man couldn't hold that post and wasn't a stable datum and felt insecure he would fall back on his superior. And if he couldn't hold that post and everything seemed to be confused around him and he didn't know what he was, then he'd have to fall back on his superior. And the next thing you know, you're at the general manager, chief of the board, Joint Chiefs of Staff or whatever you're going to call the top of the chart. Why? Because nobody anywhere lower on the chart is a stable datum; nobody can stop a communication anywhere on the chart. And so command charts in that wise, in a very aberrated fashion, then become communication charts, and so they are in this world we live in today.

For instance, I upset a pediatrician, just yesterday. I told him, „You handle children extremely well.“ A wave of pain went across his face. I'd come close to tapping this one: It is fantastically easy for him to handle children. Everybody considers that this is very difficult. And in two or three years in his career, he will have made it more difficult. But I tell him that he does it well, you see? I have already crossed him up a little bit. Just malice aforethought. Just my pointing my fangs at the medical profession slightly.

Unless, then, we know these principles and so forth, then all communication charts will be these command charts and every organization there is will be run by one man only, and he'll run himself to death and develop ulcers and that'll be the end of that. Follow me?

Of course, I probably should have gone one better. I think now I should have asked him, „How do you go about handling children that well? Just what do you do that...“

Why does a communication chart turn into a command chart? Because none of the communication points on it are terminals in fact or actuality. Nobody there can stop a communication, so they all collapse on the chief Got it?

I told him this because he made a strange remark to me. He asked me if I ever read the book called Peter the Fisherman, or something of that sort. The little children, he'd pick them up and they'd stop crying. That was how he explained his ability. I think this chap will be needing our assistance one of these days, because he's got himself all mocked up into the saint bracket. He must be eight yards, invertedly, back of his own head. You know?

Now, in times of abnormal confusion you would expect some of these points to fall back and say, "Hey. What do I do now?" But they ought to be certain enough in themselves and on their post that when it's said to them "Well, our policy at this time is just to ship everything we've got," they should say, "Well, that's good enough for me. All right, this is your stock. It belongs to somebody else, but I am on this point and therefore I will just start shipping everything we've got. Thuh-buh-wuh-wuh. All right, that's fine."

If a thetan can't stop a child from crying he ought to quit. It is very easy. But if you think it's difficult, and you get a big regimen for doing it and so forth, you'll find it's hard to stop children from crying — quite difficult to stop children from crying. As a matter of fact, the more you insist that they stop crying, the more they cry. Isn't that peculiar? Hm? You say, „Now, you haven't got anything to cry about; what are you crying for?“

You could give all of these communication terminals a new policy without unsettling their own stability, if that stability existed.

It's an interesting thing that if a child has skinned his knee, for instance, and you tell him, „That is nothing. That is nothing. What are you crying about? You shouldn't pay any attention to that,“ and so forth, you can actually observe the bruise develop much more rapidly. Because he actually is holding a bruise up to you. See? Well, something is putting the bruise there. The body, without assistance, wouldn't hold the bruise. It has to have the assistance of a mental image picture bank in order to hold that bruise.

So we find the first and foremost thing of organization of course would be a definition of organization. What is an organization? But to find out What is an organization, we have to look at what composes an organization, and we find that an organization optimumly would be composed of communication terminals. And if we look it over and find an organization is composed of communication terminals, then we decide that a communication terminal had better have a communication line. So we find an organization consists of communication terminals and communication lines associated with a common purpose or goal. And that is the definition of an organization and that is all there is. Now, if you look for anything else, you're going to get wound up in MEST. You're going to go splat against the walls or something. That's all an organization is.

So we get this whole thing of making it more difficult. If you want to get attention you make it harder. Got the idea?

Evidently an organization is a number of terminals and communication lines with a common purpose. The purpose associates and keeps in contact with one another, the terminals and the lines. That's all an organization is. It isn't a factory. It isn't a house. It isn't a machine. It isn't a product. It's not a command chart. That's all it is. And if you look it over in the light of that simplicity, you can actually form one and get one to function. One will actually function.

Now, if you've got somebody who has this kick, all you have to do is ask him to make it more difficult. Now, you can process an incident this way: You can say, „Tell me something worse. Tell me something worse than that. Come on, give me something worse than that. Give me something worse than that. Something worse than that. Something worse than that. Something worse than that.“ And it's an interesting thing that the incident will process under these lines: You just make it worse, make it worse, make it worse.

Now, there are several rules that go with this:

Actually the alternate question — „Invent an individuality that could cope with it,“ and „Tell me or invent a worse situation“ — is a killer. That blows engrams. That's a real fine process. One and two. One and two. One and two. „Invent an individuality that could cope with it.“ „Invent a worse situation.“ „Invent an individuality that could cope with it“ — just some specific incident.

Every set of communication lines (being two: one going in and one coming out) must have a terminal. Every set of communication lines must have a terminal, and every terminal must have communication lines. Isn't that idiotically simple? But unfortunately, very few organizations ever follow this, and all their confusion and randomity result therefrom – all of it. Because if there are too many lines and too few terminals, the lines will snap on those terminals. If there are too few communication lines and too many terminals, terminals will snap on the lines. You can't get a communication terminal separate from communication lines; you can't get communication lines separate from a communication terminal. They go together. And there have to be as many terminals as there are lines, and as many lines as there are terminals.

All right. Now we have this, then, workable in other factors, and one of those factors is effort. And most everybody around has difficulty with effort. They have difficulty because of estimation of; they don't measure the resistances of other things. See, they don't measure this. They get one-sided about every effort problem. They don't measure the resistance of the door; they measure their resistance in opening the door. You got that?

Now, we find in every organization somebody who wears fifteen hats, and he doesn't know it. He's the complaint department, and he's the file clerk, and the shipping manager, and this and that and a lot of other things. Now look, there's a set of lines for every one of those functions. If this man does not know he is one of these terminals, if just one is missing, then he'll use his body for it. The lines will actually snap on to his body. He's got to put his body in there the moment that he's missing a terminal.

Now, what is wrong with their ability to experience is the ability to experience effort is poorly developed. You got it? If you cannot measure the effort of the door at the same time you're measuring your effort in opening the door, you won't open the door smoothly. Now, this is the answer to that peculiar riddle: Some people do things very clumsily and some people do things very smoothly. Some people go down and run a piece of machinery on and on and on, and nothing bad occurs. Somebody else starts running this same piece of machinery and everything bad occurs. Well, that is because the individual running the machinery is measuring one of two things, or both.

He's fifteen terminals. If he knows all fifteen terminals and has a title for them, and he's got some exact geographical location where he says the terminal ends, he's all right. I mean, the lines end. He says, "That's a terminal. That's the complaint manager and here is the shipping manager and over here is the floor sweeper." He can do all of these things as long as he is all of these things. He's got himself separated out, in other words. He doesn't get tired. This is the oddest phenomenon you ever saw.

Now, somebody could actually only measure the machine's effort. Or somebody could only measure his own effort. It requires somebody to measure both efforts. He has to be sensible of both efforts in order to do a good job of handling. Follow me?

So you say is there any practicality in reviewing this subject of education organization-wise? Is there any practicality to it at all? If he has a set of lines that he doesn't think he owns – that he has no terminal for, in other words; he got the lines but he has no terminal – he resents it. He begins to buck back against the lines. He takes his body and shoves them into the lines – tuh! After a while he says, "Work is so tiring. Work is so tiring."

In order to speak, it is not enough to control the body and the voice tones in front of an audience. Oddly enough, you also have to have in some small grip the audience's ability to listen. See that? There's two sides of this.

That's quite an interesting phenomenon. A person is what he is. Anybody could hold down two hundred jobs as long as he knows he's holding down two hundred jobs. He must have the job compartmented as a terminal to match every set of lines that runs in toward that job.

Now, pan-determinism is the term we assign to handling both sides of a situation, two or more sides. And self-determinism is the definition we assign to handling one side.

I'll give you an example: Somebody in this organization was actually operating very thoroughly and very well, most of the time, with a maintenance terminal – maintaining buildings and things like that. This person was actually wearing a hat called Maintenance and had never suspected it. Never knew this person had anything to do with maintenance at all. Was there anything there connected with maintenance? "No, I have nothing to do with maintenance." And yet all the time this person was handling two lines, a set of lines which said Maintenance. Person had to ask these questions perpetually: "Is that necessary?" "Can't we have that?" "How much does this cost?" all in the line of Maintenance. Job was wearing him out! Hidden job. Missing. The job was missing. There it was. There was no job there. So what happened? Every time something came in about maintenance – somebody says, "Should we get these new carpets?" why, that person would say "No!" or "What carpets?" "What are you talking to me about? What are you talking to me about carpets for anyway? Why are you talking to me?" Get the idea?

Now, it's awfully good for a person to handle just one side. That's awfully good. That's wonderful if he can handle one side. Few people can do that. He can handle one side of it perfectly, so we say he's a self-determined individual, and this is a compliment.

Well, the reason they were talking to this person is because this person had everything to do with maintenance that was really important and didn't know it. The job had been assigned to somebody else who never wore the hat. Over in a dusty corner of a place there was a hat, all crumpled up, and it said Maintenance.

But the funny part of it is, if he were really good, he'd handle both sides: He'd be pan-determined. He would have the rock's effort to stay against the ground and his own effort to lift the rock so measured and calculated that his effort to lift the rock would be minimal. Unless he was trying to make it difficult.

Well now, can the communication lines run to that unoccupied hat? No. There was no terminal underneath that hat and as a result the lines went and found somebody to run to. Got it? In other words, a loose set of lines will all of a sudden go dahh. Get the idea? They'll say, "Ah! Buddy! Huh!" All right.

Well, the way you make it difficult is to make that rock decide all by itself how much it should stick against the ground. And in that there's nothing there to decide, we of course get a heavy rock. See this?

Now, the other phenomenon which happens, doesn't occur to be quite as important until you really look it over and have it happen. You've got this amazing thing, you see? You have a terminal with no lines, see? You've said to this person he's Maintenance. And now he has no lines. There aren't any visibly set-up lines. There's nobody to pass any communications to. There are no vias. There are no further relay points, no lines at all. What's this person do? This person at once does something very fantastic: he snaps on to another set of lines. So here are your lines, you see? Your lines are running very smoothly and everything is going along, and all of a sudden, dah-dah-dat! "What's the matter with my communication lines? Why don't they function?" Well, they're stuck on the terminal called Maintenance. What did he do? He didn't have any lines of his own so he took to tossing stuff in your baskets. He started using your lines. The terminal then found some communication lines. None were set up. Got it? There's an affinity between these things called terminals and these things called lines which don't permit them to exist separately. But that affinity should not result in a total, balled-up confusion the way it does in most organizations.

All right. Now, we look this over and we find out, then, that a preclear is making his case more difficult. He does not go easily in the direction of simplicity of case. He makes his case more difficult. His case got him attention; in order to get more attention, he's got to have more case. Got the idea? Case got him attention. More difficulty: more attention. See?

You go into most organizations, you say, "Who takes care of supplies here?"

Also we have this other factor coming in alongside of it. We have more communication. There are more things to communicate with. He has a greater complexity of communication. He knows better than to break off communications; this is always painful. This he knows. So we ask people questions like, „How much effort could you use in lifting that chair?“ „How much effort could you use in lifting that rock?“ „How much effort could you employ?“ „How much worse could you make that situation?“

"Oh, the office over there. The office over there."

That is sort of an insulting sort of question, but I've had it work many times during an emergency. Somebody is running around in a small circle, and I've stopped them and asked them, „Now, let's see, how much worse could you make this situation?“ They take a double-take, and then they kind of laugh and actually do something effective. See, it snaps out the exactness of their action.

All right, fine. Go to the office over there. "Who takes care of supplies here?"

People are too prone to think of thought as without force. You can think a thought called a lightning bolt if you really know that lightning bolts are really simply a thought thought. See, lightning bolts are just a thought thought. Think a thought, crash! See? People articulate their thoughts. People think a thought and tell something else to think this thought and so on. Get the idea?

"Well, what did you want?" Wonder why they never answered the question. People don't ask themselves that. "What did you want?" they say.

People postulate. That's just a little bit different than an action thought. They say it will happen; it is going to happen, so on.

"Well, I wanted to know where to deliver this package."

There is the thing of just happenstance. You know, it happens. You mustn't overlook this because you'll run into it in auditing.

"Oh, just leave it right there."

More game — more difficulty. As a test I have sat and asked a preclear for five solid hours, „How much worse could your case get?“ „What could happen to you?“ I've asked him. I didn't ask him that as a repetitive auditing question; his case couldn't have stood it. See, I asked him that question but I asked it in so — enough ways to get into communication with him. „Well, you say your health has been pretty bad. How much worse do you think it could get? Mm-hm, hm-mm. Could it get any worse than that? Uh- huh, well, you say your lungs. Well, could they get any worse than that? What's the worst you know about concerning lungs? How bad off can lungs actually get?“ Of course, he runs down to the very unsatisfactory zero of dust. You know, dead, dust, so on. That's a nothingness. He doesn't like that. So the lungs, of course, he concludes, must survive in a badly decayed condition for a very long time. See, because they really don't get worse when they die. Body goes and makes some better lungs; he knows that. Follow this as an action?

"Well, all right. I'll leave it right there, so forth. Who signs the receipt?"

Now, creation, then, gets branded with a number of significances. These significances are what the individual thinks are good and what he thinks are bad. And these are regulated by „How much attention can I get? How much attention can be delivered?“ or „How much communication would I have to get up if I got rid of something?“ Even an engram is something to communicate with in the lonely little shell of a head that the thetan has, you know? Even an engram is something to communicate with.

"What receipt?"

Now, you essentially, as an auditor, use these principles continuously. You use these principles all the time. You say, „What more could I communicate with around here, for this preclear?“ You say, „All right, now we'll have him communicate with the wall. We'll have him communicate with the floor, the ceiling.“ Why? That's to give him enough communication.

"Oh, the receipt for the package, the delivery of the package?"

Now, if you give him enough communication, after a while you can call it to his attention that you are breaking communication. Now, you can call that to his attention roughly or smoothly. You can say, „Break communication. Break communication, break communication, break communication.“ And he'll collapse. I don't know, nobody has ever taken it past the point of death, so we don't know whether a thetan has ever gotten well from this process or not. Might be a wonderful process, but nobody has ever survived it. We get them down toward feeling woggy and out of communication, and they stop running the process. And we really don't have any way to keep them running the process. So we assume that breaking communication or breaking ARC or stopping ARC is at once a fatal activity for an auditor to engage upon.

"I don't know. Uhm... I don't know. We'll have to ask Mr. Smithers. He's out to lunch just now. Here, I'll give you... I'll give you some directions here. The gateman usually does that. I just remembered, the gateman does that. You go out and get your signature from the gateman."

Now, this goes further than that. It is a very arduous thing to run processes which are broken-communication processes. It's hard to do this. In addition to that, they are not very therapeutic, which tends then to kind of rule them out. Doesn't it?

You go out. The gateman says, "I don't do that. What am I doing? You mean, I sign for something? Where is it?"

But there is one break-communication process which stands in an isolated state; Not-Know Processes. Now, those are broken- communication processes and theoretically should make a guy worse. But because it's an automaticity that's being overcome, the worseness of it is improved by the gain from taking something off automatic. The earliest version of this is „Something you wouldn't mind forgetting.“ A later version is „Look around the room and find something you would not mind forgetting,“ since not-know doesn't communicate well. You tell them, „Look around the room and find something you would not mind forgetting.“

"Oh, I left it back there on the porch."

Now that, of course, is essentially a break-communication process, isn't it? Evidently the automaticity that is overcome permits the person to gain more. His havingness actually increases on the process, not decreases. So he's really getting more communication all the time. It's quite amazing. In other words, there's a trick involved with that process which makes it the peculiar way you can get him to break communication. But don't try to get him to break communication in other ways; it doesn't work.

"Oh, you did?"

I'll tell you a signal failure: You ask an individual, „Break communication with the ceiling.“ He finds that not too hard to do because he hasn't got hold of the ceiling. „Break communication with the wall behind you.“

You go back and it's gone. Well, anyway...

He says, „That's all right. I can do that. I'm not looking at it anyway.“

You say that was an unusual moment for that organization. No, it wasn't. That's the way things go on all day long.

„Break communication with the side wall. Break communication with the other side wall. That's fine. Break communication with the front wall.“ He's still able to do these things, you see?

"Who's in charge of maintenance here?"

And you say, „All right, now break communication with the floor.“ You say, „Go ahead, break communication with the floor. What's the matter?“

"I don't know."

He says, „What's the matter?“ he says. „I've broken communication with the floor.“

"Well, who ordered their telephone fixed?"

„I don't know. You still got your feet on the floor.“

"I don't know. Mine's working all right."

„Oh, you want me to break my body's communication with all these things. Well, I can't.“

There's probably nobody wearing the hat.

„Well, let's start it all over again now. Let's break communication with the ceiling. Let's break communication with the back wall. Break communication with the right-side wall. Break communication with the left-side wall. Break communication with the front wall. Now break communication with the floor.“

Well, what happens? The outside world goes out of communication with such an organization. Now, the outside world – the public at large – is so unused to anything these days that looks like organization that they demand that everybody in the organization, whenever buttonholed, wear all hats, Now, watch this one.

„What are you trying to do to me?“ Down the scale he goes.

Everybody in the organization, every person there, has got to wear all hats inside the organization. So they come in, they want some – give you the idea – they want to buy a new set of paints. So they grab ahold of the fellow in the bedding department and they say, "How much are your paints?"

Give him a subjective process. „How many people could you go out of communication with?“ „Is there anybody around that you wouldn't mind not talking to?“ Any of these processes. These are all killers!

And he says, "I don't know. You'll have to go over to the paint department."

Now, they appear to be good processes, and therefore you could sit there obviously obeying the Auditor's Code and kill your preclear. I won't say that there aren't some preclears that deserve it. But I will say that it's not therapeutic. It just isn't. Why? Since obviously the world and the universe is breaking off the fellow's communication every instant.

"Well, do you have a lot of paints?"

There goes the time track, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa- pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, lost communication, lost communication, lost havingness, lost havingness, lost havingness, lost havingness. He'll eventually try anything he can do to stop this continuous loss. He never asks himself this question: Is it lost? Is it lost? Did it go into wasn't? Has it disappeared into any ain't? Or have you still got it? We're obviously merely dealing with a trick. The individual, then, isn't breaking communication with every given instant on the track.

"Well, I don't know, ma'am. You'll have to go over to the paint department to find..."

He could look the other way and find out that the time of the future as it becomes the time of the present gives him something new to communicate with in any given instant.

"Well, are... I don't know whether I really uh... should place an order with this store or not. Uh... uh... what uh...?"

You can actually turn his attention on this. You can say, „Shut your eyes. When you open them up find a brand-new world. Open them up. All right. Shut your eyes and when you open them up find a brand-new world. Open them up. All right. Shut your eyes...”

You listen to it sometime. Public walks in the door and they insist that the fellow in charge of bedding sell the paints. They insist that the fellow who is on the information desk (he should know) should be able to tell them the quality of the bedding, see? They're very certain that the elevator man is of course totally cognizant with everything connected with the administration, whereas the only thing he knows is the floors. And we get this continually: The public, being uneducated into the organization at all, keeps hitting it, and they insist that every terminal in it...

And all of a sudden he says, „What's going on here? You mean I'm getting a new universe every second? Of course, I can't count on it! Whoever that is, Skirt the drummer, may stop drumming at any moment.“ One of the more civilized theories of what keeps the universe running. It's somebody's dream, and the person will lie there and dream as long as his drummer keeps drumming; but someday the drummer is liable to get tired. And then the dreamer will wake up, and Earth is gone, and the world is gone, and the universe is gone. That's much more practical than most scientific theories on the subject. Now, merely because it's romantic is no reason to denounce its practicality.

Now, they themselves consider themselves a particle on a line at best. They're a particle on a line, you see; they're not really a terminal. And they come in and they snap on to any existing terminal. And we have to consider them lines, not terminals. And they just snap on to any terminal which exists, unless we have signs about that high that we put in front of everybody as he comes in and the sign says "INQUIRY THAT WAY."

All right. Well, the common denominator of all this is conviction. Funny part of it is, it doesn't process worth a nickel. Must be something wrong here if it doesn't process any better than it does. Must be, then, that a thetan really can put a universe there and perceive it. Just look over that statement. He really can put a universe there and perceive it. It must be a fact that this can happen. It may be that this is not simply a delusion. It may be that he actually can put a universe there. Got the idea now?

And then we have somebody thoroughly educated in Scientology from the word go that gets hold of them, remedies their learning rate, and asks them then what they want in such a way that they will actually say what they want, because in ten or fifteen minutes auditing he will have found out enough about the person so that the person will have found out what they want. You see? And then you could direct them that-a-way toward the exact terminal they are looking for. You got the idea?

Now, what is this? This is just the grading of a consideration. This minute grading of a consideration. People who cannot create or do Creative Processes are people who are convinced that there isn't anything there even if they create it. People who can't create are people who are convinced that there isn't anything there even if they did create it.

But this is how, then, organizations get that way. They get that way by being pounded out of shape by random comm lines that hit the outside. So, what does it take? The whole organization, then, has to have outside comm lines too, and is itself a single terminal. It's a group of associated comm lines and terminals which is itself a single terminal, and it has in-go and out-come lines. You got it?

Now, let's just accept as factual that a thetan can create something and perceive it. Let's just accept that as a fact. You got it? That he has to continue to create or he doesn't continue to perceive.

So that an organization which is being hit this way is actually missing its first rampart. A particle, when it hits a terminal, should stop. That's in theory. It says right there on the backtrack, it says "Space opera orders number so-and-so and so- and-so. All particles when they hit terminals stop." That agreement had to be made a long time ago or nobody would have known or been certain about terminals at all, and you wouldn't have had any universe; and maybe that would have been a good thing. Anyway...

An easy example of this: If an office boy fails to create his job newly in any given hour of the day, he soon finds himself without a job. He thinks he is holding a job. Nobody ever holds a job; one creates a job; one has to continue to create a job.

Here you have, then, organization. It is simply a group of associated terminals and communication lines, associated with a common purpose, and the organization itself must itself be a terminal with communication lines. And if you do that you got it made in the shade. You can actually bury the command chart and install an auditor.

And this one, fully explained to a PE class over a course of a couple of hours, will cause some of the doggonedest reformations of attitude toward work you ever cared to measure. You don't hold a job; you don't get a job and then hold it. You have to create a job and keep it created.

What would the auditor do? Fascinating. It is an auditing job. Now that we have a definition for it, now that we see what is going on... We have particles and information and packages and tanks, or anything you want, traveling up and down these comm lines to these various terminals. We don't care what goes on the comm lines; we've just laid the pattern. There's got to be something there for it to run on. All right.

Now, the ability to create goes over into an unknowing creation. And this unknowing creation could be solid or it could be not solid. But this is beyond this realm of discussion. It may be true that a thetan can create a universe. After all, you perceive one, don't you? Well, it may be true that it can be created. It may be true that it is not a delusion. It is maybe true that it is not a chimerical universe. But it's certainly difficult to create a universe that you can't see. Ah, that's difficult.

Now, what does this organization at large do to get itself in that condition that it can follow that definition and can be an organization? What would it have to do? It'd have to go hire a Scientologist. I'm afraid that's the only thing it could do. Because I don't know any other way to do it. I'm stupid maybe. I've had to do with a lot of organizations. I never noticed anybody around there doing it.

He scares himself half to death whenever he does this: He creates particles like gamma rays that he cannot see, which yet have a terrific effect upon his universe. Boy, what a game that is! What a wonderful game that is! Creates these things and he can't see them, and he doesn't know when they're present except by reading the action of a needle. Well, the needle can perceive them, a body can perceive them, why can't a thetan perceive them? That's just because he says he can't. Everything else can perceive them but he can't. That's one of the silliest things you ever ran into in your life. He's just decided that he can't perceive them.

I used to think I was confused. I'd walk into a big publishing company, for instance – a big company, you know – and I'd try to find the managing editor, naturally. And I'd get the managing editor, I'd get his ideas concerning the release of copyrights or something, and we'd have a talk, and we'd do this and that, and transact business and so on. Well, I got a idea after a while I was confused because I could never find a managing editor that would say he was the managing editor who would handle the business he was supposed to handle. He always wanted to pass it down the hall to somebody else, who wanted to pass it up the hall to the managing editor. And all of my business usually floated between the guy down the hall and the managing editor, you see?

So you see where we're going here? We're not talking about gamma rays; we're talking about mock-ups. Now, the rays are there. Needles can see them, meters can see them, bodies can see them, health charts can see them, but a thetan can't.

Occasionally I would work it in this fashion: I would merely pretend to have gone to the managing editor – get his secretary to forge his signature or something of the sort, you know – go to the fellow down the hall and fall on his head, you see, on the basis that something or other, something or other, and we have to have a decision on this, and then I was all set, you see? There was nothing to it. I never did that, but I would have had to have done it to have gotten anything really done at any time or anything decided.

Well, it must be that he can't simply because he's decided that he can't. And that is the single decision which stands between being able to get a mock-up and not being able to get a mock-up. That's the single decision. You can get a lot of contributory decisions, but it's certainly a clear-cut decision when you finally hit it. He has decided that he can't see mock-ups.

So I used to think I was confused, and maybe I was, but I was not anywhere near as confused as the environments I was walking in. Everybody was wearing everybody's hats.

When did he decide this? Well, you don't care. There are two ways to wear it out. Simply make him mock something up until he can mock it up. That very often works, but it's not a panacea or you would hear more about it as a process. You could have him look around and find things that weren't making mock-ups. This is effective. Effective. It does something. But if you look around and have him find things that can't see them, you're liable to solve that, right now.

I was working for North American one time – Aviation. I was working there – short time; very short period of time – till I found out what I was doing, and I left. It's interesting to find out what you're doing, after you've been put on a job after a while. I was having an awful time, and I decided I didn't learn fast. Imagine my surprise to discover after a short period of time that there wasn't anything there to learn! Now, you see, it's very often possible for you to consider yourself stupid because you can't learn something, but at the same time there might not be anything there to learn at all. Don't you see this? It might be that you feel adrift in the army. They used to call it "nervous in the service." You might feel that way, wen, because you were sort of stupid. You just didn't seem to be able to get the hot dope on which way you went and why. And maybe you did and maybe you didn't find out that you were singularly in the majority. See, you were in the majority there. Nobody else knew either.

See, there are several things that would work. There are several triggers on the line that should work. But the test is, the one that does work. The one that does work. Having a person spot things which can't see mock-ups will run out an awful lot of auditing. See why it would?

Now, let's go a little bit further than this. Maybe there was no system to know. See, maybe in the flesh there was no system to know. Maybe it was just all on paper. Maybe the order was all on the order sheets but didn't exist in actuality at all, and maybe what you saw when you saw tanks lined up or packages lined up or something of the sort, and all going off very neatly, was simply the initiative of some sergeant or second lieutenant, see? Maybe that was just the initiative of somebody who had decided he'd better get the job done there anyhow, regardless of what was happening.

Now, if you ask Joe to put up a mock-up and he put up a mock-up and then you convinced him it wasn't there, like I convinced that preclear under a test (that guy wasn't a — he was a test case; he wasn't a preclear) „Put up a wall. Put up a wall. It's not there. I can't feel it. What's the matter with you? Are you sick? Why don't you go home and get some rest?“ I keyed that boy in across the boards. Ruined him; invalidated him; upset him, so forth. How come he got mock-ups the next day? (I didn't tell you.) Well, he got mock-ups the next day because I had him spot things that couldn't see mock-ups. Got it?

Well, I found this out one time, by the way, and before somebody got wise to it and stopped me, I'd practically built half of a ship. Found out we had orders to the tropics, and the war had been a long war, so I decided I would put an air-conditioned apartment up on the signal bridge. I did. I really did.

Now, an individual who can no longer see mock-ups does this interesting thing: He mocks them up and otherwise perceives them, otherwise experiences them, but doesn't any longer see them or forthrightly, in a high knowing category, perceive them. And he feels haunted. He feels pretty upset.

I mean, by that time I knew that everybody else didn't know there was nothing there anyhow to know. All you had to do was pretend there were terminals and pass communications on pretended communication lines and you were all set. All you had to do was walk in with a sufficient atmosphere of urgency, see? Everybody ran on an emergency. So you rushed in with an atmosphere of emergency with a very official looking piece of paper in your hand and you said, "That's it." And then before anybody could question you, particularly, you walked out, and they didn't know who they'd heard from, but they knew it was sure important.

Now, an individual who can't make one is something else entirely different. This category we have to enter into and inspect, one way or the other. This individual is having trouble with effort. We always call him the trouble-with-effort case. And the funny part of it is we really can't get him to postulate it. There is nothing wrong with his ability to make them except that he won't. So therefore, we cannot consider him a clear-cut case. „The reason Joe does not have mock-ups is because he can't see them.“ That's not exactly the proper statement.

It's very disruptive when you get somebody around an organization who knows this. It's a vicious thing to have in an organization, particularly if the organization isn't one by our definition.

There could be two things wrong. It may be that he won't put them up. And this would be something on the order of a fellow who wouldn't lift his arm.

The only organization you could really wreck thoroughly and 100 percent would be an organization which didn't match up to this definition.

You say to this fellow, „Can you lift the arm?“

Now, how would you get it in that kind of a condition? Very simple, you would put people on the post. You would say, "How many people are you? How many hats do you wear?" You would just keep at him like an auditor, you know? It's auditing. It's organizational auditing. "Come on. How many hats do you wear? Come on, let's make a list of them. Come on. Are there any more?"

And he says, „Well, maybe.“

"Well, yes, and there's also wastebasket supervision."

And you say, „Well, go ahead and lift it.“ And he lifts it. And you say, „Did you lift your arm?“

"Ah, all right. Fine. Fine. Sure there are no more hats that you are wearing?" "

And he says, „Yes.“

"No. No. I think that's about all. Oh, of course, except Director of Processing, that's my main job."

All right. You say to this fellow, „Can you make mock-ups?“

I mean, this is a silly thing. You ask somebody to start making a list of all the hats they're wearing and they come out with some number. Well, the funny part of it is, all right, so there are that many hats. It's perfectly all right for one body to be wearing two hundred hats as long as the hats aren't being worn on top of that body. Let's get them out here, two hundred hats, and let's make sure they all got comm lines – otherwise they snap on each other.

And he says, „Ah-mm, no.“

Maybe you change post; maybe you put somebody new on the post. This person doesn't know he's wearing two hundred hats – whole organization eaves in on that spot. Why? The person didn't have any idea of it at all. There was no label sitting up there saying "Wastebasket Emptier." You know, this, that, the other thing, so on, all these labels. The funny part of it is there was no basket sitting there.

„Well, have you ever tried?“

Now, what's this thing called a basket? A basket is something silly. And you know what a basket is for, that's to keep things in that you don't want to read yet, and wouldn't pass on anyway. A basket is a low-order accumulator, and you're waiting for the wastepaper drive of the next war. But the only basket that actually accumulates is a basket which has no comm lines to it. The second you put comm lines to baskets properly, they empty.

„Yeah, I tell the space out in front of me to have a mock-up, but nothing happens.“

Now, a basket can sit there with nobody knowing that it is a terminal or with it being twelve terminals and nobody knowing it, and it'll stay in a confused condition. Nobody's ever sorted it out. So, the Scientologist comes along and he says, "All right. How many hats are you wearing " And he writes all these things down. "You sure these are all your hats? Well, do any of these hats combine with any of these other hats?"

You say, „Well, put one there. Put one there. Now see it.“

„Yeah, but how do you put one there?“

"We'll group that under Manager of Disposal."

„Just put one there.“

"Yeah, that's right. Come to think about it, if anybody died around here, I would be the one that would dispose of the body too. So that's right. That's a better terminal." See.

„Well, where am I going to get it?“

"So you have to say anything that's going to be thrown away around here, I am the thrower-awayer or disposer-of-er, and that is my unit. If anybody wants to dispose of something they see me. That's correct. Yeah, what do you know!" You know?

„Just put one there, will you?“ And this is what is difficult about the process: getting him to put one there rather than say, „One will now appear.“ You get the difference?

And they get a higher stable datum for each one of these terminals or their own function. And you keep working it over and working it over and working it over with this person until they finally get the idea of what this terminal is supposed to do.

Now, one of the ways you do that is to get him to lift his arm, and say, „Did you tell your arm to move?“

„No, you did.“

Now we make sure that these baskets have communication lines. That is to say, they get emptied, people come and put things in them, that there's action connected with that underneath that hat.

„Oh well, I suggested to you that you should move your arm; then did you move your arm?“

The stable datum will then as-is the confusion in the vicinity of that terminal to the point where it will simply settle down to two lines. It's magic, utter magic.

„Yes, I then moved my arm.“

If a fellow finds his job confusing or the organization confusing, what I've told you here seems fantastically simple, but it fantastically works. It does fantastically work.

„Well now, then did you tell your arm to move?“

Now, it doesn't matter what's traveling up and down the lines, with one exception: verbal messages.

„No.“

Telephones are psychotic. They don't remember a thing. I know, I picked up my phone upstairs the other day and I said, "What was that auditor's-conference report about three days ago?" and it didn't know. Didn't have a word to say. It just said, "Mmmmm." So they're all awfully, awfully confused. Well, anyway.

„Well now, move your arm again. Good. Now, tell it to move.“

What do you do about these verbal things? Well, actually they aren't a communication which can travel along the lines of an organization, and no matter how smart people are – and the people in Scientology are a lot smarter than people in most organizations – no matter how smart these people are, verbal communications flying along these lines will somewhere or another break down, and they have a great tendency to break down. They break down with thoroughness, and when they break down they leave an area of confusion around them.

So he says, „All right, arm, move. Move. Move, damn you!“ Arm doesn't do a thing.

Somebody walks in and he says, "Bill just called. He wants you to phone him back about those books."

You say, „All right, now you move your arm.“ And he does.

And somebody says, "Thanks." He's busy on a pantograph machine or something of the sort, you know, and it's going bangity-bangity- bangity-bang. "Thanks, yeah."

You say, „Now, just how are you putting these mock-ups there?“

A couple days later meets Bill. Bill says, "What the hell is wrong with you people out there!"

„Well, I'm telling them to appear, of course.“

"What are you talking about?"

„All right. We'll go over this again.“

"Well, those books!"

By the way, I've spent an hour and forty minutes with a preclear just telling him to do these things before he finally caught the re — got the correlation between these two points. I don't expect people to be that stupid. But this guy finally got it. He finally got it. And he was real proud of himself and he finally put a mock-up there. He said it was very exhausting at first because he didn't know where the energy was going to come from. So I told him to put the energy there too. I was in for another hour of it.

"What books? Oh. Oh, yeah." It's very interesting.

Now, you can get a guy, actually, to clench his teeth — something he gets rather easily, particularly men; he will say it was somebody else's fist — but you can get him to clench his teeth and grip his hands together real well and strain at it real hard and make a fist appear in front of his face. Actually put a fist in front of his face. Got it? Actually do that. Men do that rather easily. Girls, it takes an open hand usually. Now, the funny part of it is, if you exercise on this very long, you can have a preclear practically breaking his own jaw with a nonexistent arm and a nonexistent fist that he put there.

Now, this all comes under the heading of even flow on the lines.

There is a type of postulate which results directly in mechanics. And it isn't really a postulate at all; it's simply the mechanic. It is the fact! And if you work hard with a preclear, you get the preclear eventually to simply have the fact appear. Don't you see? The arm moves!

The way executives get ulcers is another story, but truth of the matter is that a written communication is far preferable to a spoken communication. They can be brief. They can be terribly telegraphic. They don't have to be fancy. They don't have to look nice or something, but they must be recognizable as a communication of some sort. They must have some sort of a destination and they must be from somebody, and they will travel, then, along lines. And the funny part of it is a fellow can get things done. He can sort these things out easily. Because you can start and stop a piece of paper, but you can't start and stop a verbal message.

Now, sure enough, there may be consequences. But he's putting consequences there for the motion of his arm: His arm moves and it gets tired. „Well now, put your arm there moving without tiredness; don't put tiredness there, just put your arm moving.“

A verbal message has the frailty of being an immediate and urgent thing, and if everybody uses verbal messages, we have left nothing but emergency. There's nothing but emergency left anywhere throughout the organization. Nobody can start and stop these things. You can't stop and start verbal messages. You have to park them yourself all up and down the time track, remembering all these vast details and so on, and it shouldn't happen. Shouldn't be, because it disobeys, in the first place, the proper-communication-lines-and-terminal rule which is set up.

He goes, „It's pretty hard to keep the tiredness from going there.“

Supposing we suddenly take a body out – a body is missing for a short time; we have to put another body in its place – where would we get all the verbal... I mean, in the body that's missing now there are a lot of verbal messages. He can't file them in this guy's skull – not, at least, by current technology. The replacement doesn't know them. Hasn't a prayer. He hasn't an idea. Furthermore, he doesn't know what the stable datum is for the job unless it's written down someplace.

You say, „No, no, just don't put it there; don't put it there. Let's try that again. All right. Now, you make your arm — put motion there, put your arm moving, without putting any tiredness there.“ You say, „Now is your arm tired?“

All right. It's quite important to know what an organization is. It's quite important if you're in an organization to know what the organization consists of and what it's trying to do. It is extremely important that you know how many hats you're wearing and that you have a terminal for each hat. And it's extremely important that you stay in communication with the remainder of the organization along its recognized despatch lines, and if you do so everything runs very smoothly and the organization will function. But if you try to go on command lines, then you, or you and somebody else, are wearing all the hats, and it's all bunched up, and it's all very confused. And this would be all right if the thing would run. It's perfectly all right to be confused if things would still run, but they don't.

„No, you told me not to put any there.“

The whole study of organization is one of the most intricate things I have ever tried to look into, so I have thrown it all away and given you this lecture.

You say, „That's fine.“

Thank you.

Now, a fellow is told that when he puts forward the mechanic of working and the use of energy he must also put forward tiredness with it. That makes it more difficult, don't you see? That gives him more game; that's more complexity. But when you tell him directly to do this without putting tiredness there and then work with him until he can, he can work just directly, just like that, with no further nonsense connected with it. It's rather fabulous.

Thank you.

Now, this is what you might call direct creation. You don't say, „Space will now appear,“ and then look around, as you sometimes see a preclear do, to see if space appeared. Look, he couldn't possibly — he couldn't possibly get away from knowing it appeared if he put it there. Could he? And yet he will look around for the mock-up. So you tell him to go ahead and see it. Well, this one he finds very difficult to manage sometimes.

Now, you can approach this on a covert or indirect way, such as, „Spot things that can't see mock-ups.“ See? That's a very covert way. Got it? „Spot things that aren't putting up mock-ups.“ See, that's pretty good.

Have him do something he already can do — moving his arm, or something like this — have him do it for a while and find out what else he's doing there, and just tell him to skip putting that up and just put up the motion of the arm. See? It's quite fabulous. Quite fabulous. Terribly direct approach, almost insultingly direct. You see? Awfully direct.

Now, if you get a guy straining at it, he can really put a desk here. Not on the basis that he is already putting a desk here so you're making him take over the automaticity of putting a desk here. That's too roundabout. When you simply make him put a desk here, he'll be able to experience the existence of the desk here. And his perception goes right up like a rocket. Got it? It's much too direct a process.

That's why I am teaching you learning processes. You catch? Hm? That's why I'm teaching you learning processes. Because here are some processes that are so fantastically direct that all you do is cancel the preclear's effort to make them complex. You don't even pay any attention to it. You don't say we have to run a gradient scale on this. The only gradient scale you have to run on it is the gradient scale of persuasion.

It's just „You do it. Now knock off whatever else you're doing; let's put that there.“

And he says, „Well, my energies are being all exhausted...“ And some other line of reason, reason, reason, reason why, reason why, reason... Well, skip it. Tell him to put it there and tell him to perceive it now. Put it there and perceive it. He'll scare himself half to death some of these times, by the way.

Now, I gave you another set of postulate processes which reaches this more covertly. They're very excellent, and I don't know anybody they don't work on: „All right, decide to put a mock-up out there. Decide that if you did so it'd ruin the game and don't.“ And after a while, when he decides to put a mock-up out there, he simply starts putting one out there.

Now, that we know for sure works. But once you've put this one there and you accomplish that one, you have the next one: „Decide to put a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that would ruin the game and don't.“ See, those processes.

Now actually, that merges eventually with this other thing of „Put a mockup there,“ but it doesn't do so smoothly. It isn't inevitable that these two processes go together and one produces the other, and you depend on the automaticity of those two processes following in sequence.

If you do that one for a while — „Decide to put a mock-up there. Then decide that would ruin the game and don't. Decide to put a mock-up there — a big, brilliant mock-up up there, as big as that wall. Now decide that would ruin the game and don't“ — you'll get him onto the inversion. See, his effort not to put one there causes one to occur. All sorts of oddities occur because of this. You fool around with these and you see these inversions work out, and so on.

But you have this other one, and this other one follows, to a marked degree, in its wake. Now, if you want somebody to mock up a man in the middle of the room that everybody can see, he simply puts a man there that everybody can see. See, it isn't just a matter of he says, „A man will appear and everybody can see it,“ because he doesn't do this, see? He puts a man there. You get the idea, see? And he puts it there in a way that it stops light and therefore becomes perceivable. Got it? And boy, that really takes learning processes.

He has to finally listen to you. You have to really be able to audit. You have to get a communication through. And you should yourself have some very good concept of what you're doing there. You get that, of course, by moving the arm and doing other things, and saying, „Now, wait a minute. Now, I move the arm. Now I feel some motion inside. Isn't that peculiar that I feel motion in this arm when I don't feel any motion in that chair out in front of me. I don't even feel its sitting-stillness. I feel this body's sitting- stillness. Well, why don't I feel that chair's sitting-stillness?“

„I don't know, why don't you? What's wrong with you? You been sick?“

Now, people stop doing this every now and then because they think they find it uncomfortable. They see a clammy wall or a clammy milk bottle or something.

First time I ever did this with any violence, had a wax-covered milk bottle out in Phoenix — you know, one of these paper bottles — and it was sitting on the table. And somebody was giving me some coffee-shop auditing. And I put this milk bottle — I wasn't putting the milk bottle there; I was just simply seeing if I could communicate with anything else in the room, one way or the other. And all of a sudden, I communicated fully with this milk bottle. The Phoenix climate there promotes a certain clamminess on something that's very, very cold and is suddenly brought out into the room air. It was the clammiest, horriblest feeling thing I ever ran into directly.

I recoiled. Nobody could convince me that I ought to feel anything then for the next five minutes. Get the idea? You hadn't ever felt anything that far from the body — five or six feet... Feeling it, you see, just exactly as though it was the body. You know, feeling it just as though you would feel it — not with your hand, with a beam, but just experiencing its existence. And it was cold and clammy and covered with wax. Nyah!

Well now, things get more difficult; things are, in final essence, an action called creation, creativeness; and mechanics do not require a thoughtful statement. They are their own class of action or beingness. You know learning processes; you could communicate this fact to a preclear or receive this fact yourself sufficiently well that you could bring these actions or objects into existence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]