[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Want to talk to you about the degeneration of a static.

There's a rumor going around that I'm supposed to talk to you about how to instruct people tonight.

Once upon a time there was a little thetan. And he was a happy little thetan and the world was a simple thing. It was all very, very simple. And then one day somebody told him he was simple. And ever since that time he's been trying to prove that he is not. And that is the history of the universe, the human race, the Fifth Invaders, the Fourth Invaders, the Three-and-a-half Invaders, the people on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Arcturus, the Marcab System, the Psi Galaxy, Galaxy 82. I don't care where you look, that's the story. Only it's too simple a story, much too simple a story, because this thetan would have to admit that he was simple if he understood it.

Now, somebody tells me that that's what I said earlier today, but I have been run on not-knowingness, and the process was never flattened. We got back to five lives ago and I quit. I said, "That's that," I said, "That's that. If there's... If I've got all this to not-know all over again, to hell with it."

Now, this being the sad story, let's just trace some of these levels of complexity to which he has resorted. We have to examine emotional response to some degree to understand that emotional response is also a complexity. It's just another complexity. If one did the same thing all the time, everybody knows — everybody knows — one would eventually get bored. But now, just a minute. Boredom is only one of a complex series of emotions. There's no such thing. You have to invent boredom to get bored. You see that?

I want to talk to you about instruction. Instruction is an interesting subject. It's a very interesting subject, because we seem to be in the business of instruction. Now, you think of yourselves as auditors. Auditing techniques are a method of bringing people to know. Think it over.

There's no reason why he has to be this complex, so let's look it over very care fully and realize that he has to have a reason why in order to be complex. You get that? He has to have a reason why in order to be complex. He has to be complex because he invented a series of emotional responses which he now has to avoid. Do you see this? And every way you look at this thing it gets to be sillier and sillier. The funny part of it is, it's dead serious. Because that was invented too.

A great oddity here is that the common denominator of living appears to be learning. In Dianetics we had survival as a common denominator. In Scientology we discover, much to our embarrassment, that that's inevitable. So we have to find another excuse, and the best excuse we can find without looking too far or weighing our brains down too much is learning.

Now, one fine day, I was busy getting audited and I was absolutely flabbergasted to discover something: that I could knit. Now, you speak of abilities, that's quite an ability. I could knit. This became very obvious to me. But as far as abilities go, it would absolutely flabbergast you how I could knit. No body! Look Ma, no body. Weave baskets. You know, get over a pile of reeds, and just start weaving them all together, nice as you please. Neat.

Apparently learningness has great breadth, and we find learningness at almost any level of action, living or operation.

But somebody came along one day and almost died of heart failure because they said this was startling. Here were baskets going together with no human agency. Here were woofed and warped little rugs and... Here was all kinds of stuff. And here was something vaguely resembling a sweater, you know, just going together as nice as you please. Knitting needles going clickity-clack. Well, this was upsetting to people, they told me.

Now, learning would encompass this operation: Fellow looks at the wall and learns it's a wall. You got that? So recognizingness is the lowest level of learningness and is still learningness.

Why was it upsetting? Not because it's too startling, but because it's too simple.

We meet Joe. If we're in good shape, we can learn that it's Joe by looking at him. Some of us who are not in very good shape meet Joe and talk to Father.

But I want to know what I was getting so complex for. Why was I getting so extremely complex as to knit? Why didn't I just mock it up? Look that over.

Now, do you see how this fits? See how this could be pushed over into a learning category?

So we look upstairs from the level of complexity that we have already reached when one is busy standing over a pile of reeds and knitting some baskets and weaving some stuff. That's complex, see? That's what I found out during the session — suddenly struck me that this was not very startling. What was startling was that I was knitting them!

Now, don't be fooled. The truth of the matter there is there's an awful lot more (this is between us Scientologists) to livingness than learningness. There's a lot more of it. There is creatingness. There is a number of other factors than learningness. We're not going to go into any of them. We're just going to talk about learningness, and we're going to show how everything could be pulled in and by some slight adjustment, and maybe going around a few fast curves, be common-denominatored into learning, which would make education our forte. Education.

Well, anyway, this is the way it goes. This is levels of complexity being assumed. Every time you find an action, you already have assumed a step in the direction of complexity. Any action goes in the direction of complexity.

The odd part of it is that a Scientologist can educate people that no one else has ever been able to educate. How do they do it? By auditing them. One of the main things that rises in auditing is IQ, which tells you of course, secondarily, that learning rate goes up. What is IQ but relative cognitionability?

To maintain any strata of life, it is necessary to perform a certain series of complex actions — to maintain any series, any strata. Whether to stand up above a bunch of tangled reeds and weave them together into baskets or — without human agency — or whether it's simply to sit still. There's an action involved in sitting still — with a body. There isn't any action involved with a thetan sitting still. It becomes very difficult. It's a very difficult thing for a thetan not to sit still. It's a very difficult thing for him to sit still. It's a very difficult thing. Because he is still.

Now, what then are we doing, what are we doing in actuality (below the level, of course, of Solids and Effort and so forth), but pushing thought around one way or the other? See, we're pushing thought around.

Now, the hardest thing that a thetan does is to do what he is. That's the hardest thing for him to do, is to do what he is. Quite remarkable. It's quite remarkable — to do what he is.

Now, people who think there is only thinking of course buy at once the totality of cognitionness. See, they buy that as the totality of any action. If you can learn about it, you got it. They do this so well that they invent so many things to learn about that nobody is ever then able to get Clear by processes of education alone. They booby-trap the line.

Now, he can always do a complexity, because he's not. But to do what he is, that's something else. Something totally still, that's difficult for him. He runs it out at once into a complexity.

Some fellow has a body; he can't look at it so he looks at somebody else's. He can't look at that so he looks at a dead body on the dissection table. He finds an awful lot of spare parts as he begins to cut it up one way or the other. He looks over all these spare parts and he begins to realize that there is no way he can bring order into the chaos of blood and confusion from this cadaver except to apply new titles to everything that comes under his hand. So he writes a learned textbook on the subject. But actually he doesn't do anything. He doesn't even do a good job of cutting the corpse up, but he does do a splendid job of titling parts of the corpse. And he does a wonderful job of this, and he spends the rest of his life readjusting his titling.

Now, any definition you have for a static has lower harmonics. And here's the definition — Axiom 1, and Axiom 2 for the actionness and description in general — and these all have lower harmonics. Now, as we look down the line, we find lower and lower harmonics on these things, and we discover such things as „dead.“ Well now, dead is a lower harmonic on being a thetan. That's pretty wild; look that over carefully. Because a thetan is alive, and a dead body hasn't got a thetan in it. Therefore, a thetan takes very kindly to dead people. He takes very kindly to that. And it often makes him believe that he wants to kill people. But he makes this very difficult because it is what he is, you see: It's still.

This is about as close as anybody ever looked at a body – I mean directly – in the healing professions. They've even taken the titling and put it over into a dead language that nobody ever speaks anymore, you see?

Each one of these lower harmonics on what a thetan is, contains an additive. There's an additive characteristic to the basic definition of the static and the next few capabilities of a static. Now we keep adding things and we get these lower harmonics. They're very interesting. These are truth. That is what they have been seeking for tens of thousands of years. This is the truth for which they seek in yoga, mysticism, spiritualism, magic, and so on. All those categories which are just further developments of static, just as such. There's a whole list of them in Fundamentals of Thought. And there's a more complete list elsewhere. These are truth.

A psychologist trying to occupy a brain that is to him only a series of titles will not get very much reality on the close proximity of brain cells. He has so many parts of the brain that he is living in the midst of a bunch of titles.

And if you go searching too widely and wildly for truth without finding the upper-scale truth — in other words, if you go searching for truth without really finding truth — you have adventured upon a course which is fatal, to say the least. It is a fatal course. Because it winds one up in that complexity known as „searching and investigating,“ and this can become quite obsessive. Now, man has been at this for quite a while. He's...

Now, learning can very easily, then, be subjugated to learning some complexity which has been invented about something that one never looks at. And so learningness itself can get to some degree into disgrace.

Now, a thetan can become involved in investigating himself, and he can become involved in investigating other thetans which he mistakes for himself. And he can become involved. But the easiest way for him to become involved is to seek truth. And therefore, every great school, whether Manichaean, Egyptian, no matter what great school of religious search there has ever been, has wound up in this truth list, which happens to be no-game condition.

There's an obsession about learningness which is quite interesting to handle: the technique of craving to know – "Put craving to know into the walls," and so on; makes people sick at their stomachs, and all sorts of interesting things.

The no-game condition list, in other words, is a list of lower harmonics of truth. And that is a no-game condition list. A no- game condition is differentiated from a game condition very sharply then, and very high, very positively.

Now, here's learningness, then, at its worst: learning large, long categories of invented knowingnesses disordered into some kind of a chaotic catalog, with another curve of another language being applied, and so on.

Over here on the other side, we have what we call game conditions, and those are the parts of a game as viewed from a thetan playing the game. This is what he thinks it ought to consist of That is simply a complexity, and it is totally a pack of lies. There isn't anywhere under game conditions, anything resembling truth.

Botany is one of these classification subjects. And I'll tell you the total thinkingness that went on concerning botany. It would interest you very much. It was done by Francis Bacon in a little essay, and he laid down a (quote) "science" called botany because he supposed that this would be a good way to lay down a science. So he just took something that hadn't been laid down and dashed it off in a paragraph or so, that this is the way you would put together a science about flowers, growing things. He dashed off this little paragraph, and that, since the sixteenth century, has been a science called botany.

So you have a list of truths and you have a list of lies. And people who sought to go straight into truth very often hit one of the lower harmonics and „went up the pole“ an old Dianetic phrase. They get very ecstatic. Wears off in eight or ten days. That's the end of them. They get into some lower harmonic and get stuck. But you can evidently lie forever — evidently — as long as you try to keep lying. But when you stop trying to lie or play a game, you become truth, which is nothing. You understand that? The ultimate consequence, you see, the ultimate consequence of playing a game is to not play a game. That is the total ultimate consequence. You don't even say „not be able to play a game,“ or anything else. This could get too involved, and we're just getting more complex. The total consequence of not playing a game is not playing a game.

Well, it's never moved in its actual technical activity from those few sentences. But, brother, has it got classification! Wow!

Any game there is, is basically a lie. Basically, games are a lie, because they take a bunch of things which a thetan is not, and he carries forward with these things. In other words, there are a great many things which a thetan is not. In other words, he invented them. They're totally invented. And being totally invented, they avoid, as much as possible, truth.

Now, you didn't know that a skunk cabbage was actually intimately related to a wallaby rose, did you?

Somebody comes along and says, „Life has no purpose in it.“ Shake him by the hand; he's uttered a great truth. Get the idea? That's a great truth. But its an undesirable truth, because its a lower harmonic on truth: it assumes the existence of a complexity — bodies, planet, income tax — which amounts to life. So life has no purpose in it. Well, that’s perfectly true, perfectly true. And there's nothing wrong with it at all — except he doesn't like it, because he's already entered into a great many complexities called life. He calls this life. He thinks this is all the life there is.

Well I didn't either but the... some botanist would undoubtedly be able to accomplish this in some associative fashion.

Now, he is trying to back out of some difficult situation. And in trying to do so, he conceives himself the effect of the situation, so he goes into a no-game condition and he starts uttering great truths — in a sad tone of voice. „Life is without purpose. Everybody eventually dies. There is no end to it at all; it just goes on and on.“ You see, these are laments (uttered in the right tone of voice), but they are lower harmonics of truth. This is all perfectly true. There's no argument there of any kind.

All right. Now, let's take learning about the mind. I said some psychologist would be in the middle of a bunch of named parts, he wouldn't be in the middle of a brain. Well, then his ability to contact or look at his own brain has been so low that it has escaped him that the classification of the brain was the classification of an item in which most of the psychology world has been totally, embeddedly resident. So this whole fact has escaped them.

But when you start backing out into truths, you start backing out into truths at a low level, which already have complexities. Already, there are complexities existing.

Now, let's look carefully why it has escaped them. They couldn't look at it, so they looked at a substitute for it. They couldn't look at the thing, so they looked at a substitute for the thing.

Give you some sort of an idea. Any of you with the greatest of ease could sit down alongside of a lake, and just sit there without thinking a thought, without doing a thing, so forth, just for ages and ages and ages. You could do this, you see? But we take somebody, and we put him alongside of a lake... They do all sorts of things. They build summer camps (one of the more nonsensical activities) — summer camps that leak all winter, you know? — and they do this and they do that. And they can't sit quietly alongside the lake because of the speedboat. What about the speedboat? It was bought. Well, having been bought, it is owed for. One has to have income. One has already contracted the care and feeding of a body. Food has to be paid for. Complexities, complexities, complexities.

Now, let's go on into basic therapies, old-time therapies of one kind or another, and we find one of those was psychoanalysis. And psychoanalysis is so interested in the significance of the experience that they have never looked at the experience.

But if we removed all these complexities, and if one did not have an urge to go into a game condition with regard to the lake, one could sit there forever in perfect equanimity, providing — providing — he did not have an urge toward a game condition. In other words, all thetans are liars. They're habitual liars. Probably we ought to have an Axiom on it, about Axiom 4 3/4. It's probably really Axiom 1.2. You see this?

So education has been in the past, or learning has been in the past, a system of avoiding observation. So a systematic avoidance of observation will sooner or later get something into trouble, and into trouble has come the whole of education itself.

And the only thing that goes wrong with a liar is that he eventually believes his own lies. These are hard words. One shouldn't use these things. I have a book written by a very famous artist up in Montana, Charlie Russell. He's long since dead, and his publications, I don't think, ever wandered east. But his paintings certainly have. And they are becoming more and more popular. But, oddly enough, they are almost out of sight now. In his own lifetime, why, he would have been glad to have gotten rid of a painting for a couple of bottles of rather second-rate rye. But his paintings are way out of sight. But he wrote a little book. Collected all the stories he knew and heard and had invented in the Montana area.

We send a man to school for – I don't know, I think it's gotten up to an optimum now of sixty years till he gets out of college; and this individual actually has been put in a groove of avoiding knowing. You see that? He's on a system whereby he can avoid knowing something. How does he do that? By studying it!

And one of these had to do with a fellow that shot a moose in a land where there are no moose. And the moose had antlers with a twelve-foot spread. And every time he'd have a few drinks, he'd start telling people about his battle with this moose. And he up and shot this moose, and he lugged this moose home. And he finally would always wind up the story with the difficulties of getting the moose's horns into the attic of his cabin. He managed it though; had to knock out one whole side of the cabin. He'd wind this up.

Now, there are significances, and there are basic associations, and there are mock-ups, and there are floors and walls and machinery and cogwheels and botanical gardens. There are all these things. And anybody that you're trying to teach anything is normally into an interesting avoidance of the object by learning its invented knowingnesses.

Well, it was a very entertaining story, and he told it very well — much better than I've told it to you. It goes on for ages. But one day, why, Charlie Russell the painter met him in a bar, and he said, „Hey, Benson,“ he says, „How about that moose?“ He wanted to hear about the moose again. Everybody always wanted to hear about the moose again.

Here's a great big machine, has chromium-plated cogwheels and gold-plated levers and – oh, it's a gorgeous piece of stuff, you know? I mean it's huge, so on. Two men walk up to it. One of them says, "What's that?"

Benson said, „Charlie, I've stopped telling that story.“ „What's the matter?“

And the other one says, "That's a Nash-Wheelsy."

He says, „Well, I told it so often that last winter, along about Christmas time, I got curious and I went up in the attic and damned if it was there!“

"Oh? Oh, is that right? I didn't know that." And they walk away.

Now, of course, that's a very low harmonic on what a thetan does. A thetan actually does put antlers up there. And he does believe they're there, and he sees them. The conviction with which he is always operating and of which he is capable, therefore, tends to confirm his delusory statements.

How easy it is to satiate somebody's appetite for learning by giving them a name for something. You ought to make a study of this. Somebody comes around to you and asks you, "What kind of a circumstance is this whereby somebody goes off the end of the pier because of a divorce? What's wrong with such a person, they had a divorce and they want to bump themselves off, and so on? What is that all about?"

Well, in auditing somebody, you'll discover at once that he believes many things, but above all he believes in a complexity. This he believes in. A fellow walked up to me just last night, and he said to me, „I understand you can help people out.“

And then you start to explain to them, "Look. What this person did to the other marital partner is kicking back as a motivator, you see? The person who is so upset about it must have done something."

I said, „Yes.“

Now, you explain this and you possibly would get it across very nicely. You see, possibly. You see, you would just take the actual straight-out anatomy of the marital difficulty. One person, after a divorce they want to kill themselves, and so forth. Well, they must have done something in order to inherit a motivator to this degree. Well, we explain this to somebody, we would give them some information. Why is it information? Because it can be used in the game of life.

He said, „Well, I've been drinking ever since my wife left me, and I can't stop it.” And he said, „I can't pay my bills,“ he says, „but every time I get ten dollars, I can always go to the liquor store and pay that son of a blank down there ten dollars to give me some poison to ruin my life a little bit further.“ And he says, „I can't stop it.“ And he says, „I understand, why, you can help people out.“ He just walked up to me on the street.

But now let's just completely and utterly sidestep any responsibility we have as Scientologists, or just kick it over sideways and say, "Ahhhh!"

Yeah, well, I listened to this for a while. It's quite true, quite true: he couldn't stop it. He has a level of complexity going which he cannot halt. In other words, he's lost control of it, so he's in a no-game condition.

And they say, "Yes? What's the matter?"

What'll he do? Well, we'll get somebody to run him on 8-C for a while and he'll be all right.

"Well, that person has a-a-a-a-pseudomania. I mean it's a very serious circumstance. It's an illness – it's an illness which often comes after a divorce. Pseumania – pseudomania marititus." And you would be fascinated how often this deep, profound piece of nothingness would turn somebody else around and send them away perfectly satisfied, evidently. You know? They "know" now. Well, what do they know? They know something to remember, that's what they know. And that's all they know.

But the truth of the matter is he's incapable of abandoning a necessity for alcohol, which kills him. Got the idea? There you are. He's convinced. But the funny part of it is, is he isn't convinced. He feels, still, that he ought to do something else than, every time he gets ten dollars, buy some liquor and ruin himself. See, he feels he ought to do something else, but something else, he feels, has to do this and has control of him. Well, that's probably the case. He has collected, arduously, a very complex series of pictures. He collected them innocently at the time, and then one day they bit. And one of them contains dipsomania. And the picture wants to drink.

All right. Let's look at this, and let's take a little closer view of this, and we discover then that that person is willing to avoid the situation. The person is willing to avoid the situation and you gave him an excuse to. You gave him a fancy name. He didn't have to invade the thing any further. That was that, he could just avoid it from there on out and he's all set.

Now, you've heard of the genie and the lamp. Old story. The genie in the bottle. Well, I wonder that this genie ever could get into the bottle in the first place — just like the fisherman wondered. How'd he get in the bottle in the first place? Probably to find out if he could. Then he couldn't get out of the bottle. So when somebody asked him, at once, to prove that he was in the bottle, he promptly went back in again. He just dramatized his demonstration in the first place: „I can get in this bottle.“ Somebody tapped the cork in, and left him on the seashore somewhere. He decided that wasn't a good thing. And so he promised all sorts of things, and the fellow — fisherman let him out. All right.

Or you have given him a little thread off your cloak of authority. An authority has told him this, so now he is an authority. And he goes down and tells his fellow mechanic "You know – you know Pete?"

That's, by the way, a lesson not to exteriorize somebody. It's back there in the Arabian Nights. Clearly an anti-Scientology propaganda campaign.

"Yeah, what about Pete?"

But what about these levels of complexity? An individual enters a level of complexity, and then discovers that he cannot abandon some part of the complexity. And not being able to abandon it, he is convinced that it is, and he is stuck with it. So, therefore, he can't abandon the complexity. He loses his selectivity over complexities. That's what really happens to him. There are many things in the complex scene which he would happily abandon, but there are some of them that he won't.

"Well, you know Pete – Pete's in a bad way."

The funny part of it is, the one thing which probably keeps this dipsomaniac living is not his desire to live — he undoubtedly does not desire to live, since he would live anyway — what keeps him going is his craving for liquor; that's the one thing he keeps around that he can't abandon. Therefore, he can't abandon life as long as he craves liquor.

"What about Pete?"

You come along as an auditor and try to get him to abandon craving liquor. You'd have to have some complexity to offer in lieu of this horrible rat race in which he is. This is done, of course, by the old process, Problems of Comparable Magnitude. You'll find out that'll gradually ease off. But there are some newer processes on this which are quite interesting. Very fascinating.

"Well, Pete has uh... pseuda... um... has... uh – he's got a dreadful disease!" That's the end of that datum.

Now, we look over these conditions called game conditions, we see at once that we aren't just talking about somebody playing tiddlywinks. This is a technical term in Scientology. It means a precise thing. There are certain conditions which follow game conditions. Now, game conditions are all right, as long as they are knowing game conditions. When they become unknowing game conditions, they are all wrong. Unknowing game conditions are all wrong.

All right. We find, then, if this is dominant as a method of conveying understanding, that people must be avoiding to a very marked degree the actual objects, actions or beingnesses of life. Must be! They must be running on "avoid," somehow or another. They must be going off this way when they, as far as we could see, could go right on that way.

Now, we used to use the word dramatization as the alternate word to... what we now say a high, unknowing games condition. We just said dramatization. Fellow was dramatizing an engram. Well, he didn't know it was there. He was still obsessively playing the game he was playing at the moment the engram was not an engram, but was life. And this engram stayed around and makes him redramatize this moment again. Well, that is an unknowing games condition. And that's what that's all about. There isn't anything else to it. It's not complicated.

Some fellow wants to know how to build a small concrete dam. You teach him how to mix concrete, you teach him how to make a form, you teach him something about the pressures of water at certain depths and the need of side embankments. And it's quite a subject, but you could probably teach him all this in an evening. They don't do that in this society. They send them to college for four years. And when they come out, they don't even know what a dam is. And they don't give a damn either.

But this list gives us what game conditions are. Of course, they are all aberrative. Somebody looks this over, and he says, „Well, what do you mean that's a game condition? You realize that if you had to have no effect on self and total effect on somebody else, you'd have an awful time after a short while. You'd pay no attention to anybody else in the world; you'd override everybody's rights; you'd trample on everything; you'd just be operating to smash everything down, and so forth. Ah, why, that's a terrible thing,“ he'd say.

All right. So, education could be one of several things, one of which could be the science of avoidance – how to avoid. And we could do all that up, and we could do a wonderful science. It'd be terrifically acceptable. We would write it up in such a way that never could anybody find out anything, anyhow, anywhere. We would teach them a system whereby, if they looked at a wall, it was then necessary to look it up in a book. And having looked it up in a book, they would then have to address a small slide rule which operated in phonetics. Then they could look at the name on the slide rule, one way or the other, and it would give them a combination of syllables somehow or another, and this, we would say, was it.

You'd say, „That's right, that's a terrible thing.“

You would be very amazed, but a book on this subject written with a very sober, pompous style would probably be enormously successful. "The Science of Knowing How to Study," or something, you could call it, you know. You'd be all set.

„Well, all right,“ he'd say, „Then what have you got it there for?“

You would do this by catering to their avoidance mechanisms. You'd permit them to avoid, wouldn't you?

„Well, that's because that's the way a thetan looks at it; that's why it's there.“ No effect on self, total effect on something else. And eventually we get into overt act-motivator sequences, and we get into all kinds of interesting complexities, and so forth. Well, the next thing you know he's a general.

Well, our systems of education are less merciful, much less merciful, because we operate on the very sound principle that it won't kill anybody to know anything. And they operate with the associative datum – you see, the datum instead of the thing, and so forth – they operate on the theory that a little bit of learning will kill you deader than a field mouse; that learning is dangerous.

This is all very well to look at as a theoretical basis. However, it's very practical. It's extremely practical.

There's even an old proverb, "A little bit of learning is dangerous," you know? How they would love to include into that "A little bit of learning or a whole lot of learning or any kind of learning about anything will kill you dead." That is the theory of avoidance in education.

You remember the first communication formula. It was cause- distance-effect, with cause where the preclear was. Now, two-way communication makes an habitable world. Of course, just cause- distance-effect only, with the preclear always at cause, makes an uninhabitable world. But it's a game condition. And he does it.

Now, we come through and we don't subscribe to this. We don't subscribe to it at all because we know for a fact – we know for a fact that a person (that is, the person, not his body) could actually connect with or associate with anything with impunity. And the only things that are giving him any trouble are those things with which he dare not associate. The things that he's unwilling to learn something about are the things that are giving him trouble.

Now, when you start auditing him, you will discover, very oddly, that he runs avidly in a no-game condition category: effect on self. Terrific, you see; a terrific effect on self. He'd just love to have effects on self. We used to call it motivator hunger. And it's very factual, it is motivator hunger. He... Wow! But you audit him very long, and appease this motivator hunger, and enough tests have now been accumulated, so that I can pretty well guarantee that you would audit him into the ground.

And then, what does learning mean to us? It means, simply, communication. It doesn't mean a substitute datum. That's awfully, brutally, horribly simple. You want to learn about something, communicate with it, see?

„Mock up yourself dead. Mock up yourself dead. Mock up yourself dead. Mock up yourself de--.“ No good. It's not a good technique.

Now, one of the ways of communicating with it is talking it over. Now, supposing it's just a datum. Supposing it isn't a solid object, supposing it's just some thetan's postulate. The only way it disappears is to talk it over, and in many cases, think it over.

„Mock up somebody else dead. Mock up somebody else dead. Mock up somebody else dead.“ Good technique.

Now, a person gets down to a point where he can't think it over anymore, then he has to talk it over. But most people do both: they think it over and talk it over, and it goes boom.

So we have a tool here which differentiates between good and bad techniques. Now, I can guarantee that you will undoubtedly, here and there, flub this one. This one you will flub, because your preclear is so anxious to convince you that he is a victim. Yeah, he's a victim. A victim of what? A victim of his playing games. Yeah, he's a victim of that. But he doesn't know he's a victim of that, he thinks he's a victim in some other way. He thinks things have been done to him. No, he's done things to things. Now, this is a very hard thing to sell the public or any individual: That he is sick because he's done things.

Data consists of the postulates, or assignment of value, of thetans.

But if you could get a person who came to you, and on whom you could run with the greatest difficulty, „Look at me, who am I?“ and if you were to ask him and receive an answer to „tell me one thing you've done to somebody else,“ his health would take an upward surge, his mental stability would take an upward surge. It's one of these very low order, challenging questions. And it's right next door to „Look at me, who am I?“ It's one of these things that runs the whole band, but it is usable in the lowest ranges of auditing. You say, „Look at me, who am I?“ you get him into communication one way or the other. There's an adjacent process which is a direct-communication process: „Tell me one thing you've done to somebody.“ And if you can get that question answered, you'll have a change — if you can get it answered.

That's data. That's all data is.

But on a case that would be very difficult to run „Look at me, who am I?“ — very difficult to run on that one — to get him to do this other one is almost impossible, but terrifically productive of results. That's something for you to remember. You're asking him to run a formula called cause-distance-effect. You could also ask him, „Tell me something that you could have an effect upon.“

Now, when they have assigned a value on which they have rather uniformly agreed, they have a fact. You got that? Now, would anybody please tell me how the association only with these agreements, or the communication only with these agreements, would kill anybody? That's for sure.

Now, let me give you a very interesting, neat little package of a process. Somebody has just gotten off an airplane that was a rough trip, and they don't feel well — they do not feel well at all. Went over the Appalachians flying low and slow or something. If you wanted to snap them out of that with an assist in about fifteen minutes, you could do so by simply asking them to look around, right where they are, and find something they could do. You see, that’s still cause-distance-effect. See, that's still overt act. That is still „do something to somebody else,“ or „do something to something else.“ „Look around and tell me something you could do.“

Well, it so happens that the walls got there that way. That's packing a postulate that says "I am a case of thereness, agreed upon and ratified by the Treaty of Ugveldt, eighteen miles south of cloud nine." That's the wall.

It's quite amusing that the person would at once have a tendency to hold on to the seat. He just finished a rough trip, see? You've just turned on all of the plane motion. And you ask him something else he can do, and he feels the plane go jolt-jolt. He says, „That’s funny.“ He looks around; he's very apathetic. „Something I could do. I guess I could step on that cigarette butt four feet away... it's already been stepped — Yes, I could do that.“ Yep-rup-rup! You moved him on the track.

So if there's a vast difficulty in associating with other people's agreements, of course then we'll have vast difficulty. Because the vast difficulty is just another postulate.

Because he had to sit still in the airplane — it was a rough trip — with the belt buckled, which told him he could do nothing, he must not be anything but an effect, it said there. It said, „Fasten Seat Belts.“ Got the idea? So it made him an effect. During the entire trip, he conceived that the plane was moving him, he was not moving the plane.

So we get down to the fundamental of Scientology education, and that is that it doesn't hurt a thetan to communicate with anything, anywhere, at anytime. And to educate him, all we have to do is teach him that. He has to know that. He gets to be a mighty smart boy if he subjectively knows, knows by experience – may require some processing, you see – that it won't kill him to know about something. If he learns that, then he learns learning.

Actually, on a little further analysis, he was moving the plane, even if only economically. He did pay his fare. If people didn't pay their fare there wouldn't be any airplanes. And that's true, by the way; that's true even in Russia. That's true in Russia where they don't pay for anything: They don't have any airplanes either. Now — oh yes, they have military airplanes, but there are no passenger lines to amount to anything.

It's a great curiosity that to go on then from that point and make any great tremendous complexity out of it is really rather difficult. A person can learn about what he can communicate with. And it won't hurt him to communicate with it.

All right. Now what, then, is all of this hogwash about running out everything that's been done to the preclear? Leave it alone! You'll make him, the victim, scarce on incident.

Now, it does hurt – you understand, this is the cross-up that gets this all off. When you push a body into a buzz saw, parts come off, which by common agreement is painful. That's quite different though – it's quite different – than a thetan communicating with a buzz saw. You get somebody exteriorized and push him into a buzz saw and he says, "Whee!"

Perhaps you could get somewhere by saying — I said perhaps, remember — you could get somewhere by saying, „Invent something that has been done to you.“ See? You'd possibly get somewhere. It's a questionable technique, though. Very questionable. You really will get somewhere if you ask him to invent something he could do to somebody else. Now you'll get somewhere; now you start moving his case. And the formula is cause-distance-effect, with the preclear at cause. Because every time a thetan involved himself with doingness and beingness, with identities and possession and so forth, he was involving himself in a game condition. And the only thing that is wrong with an individual is he has played a game, and forgotten.

Now, the funny part of it is, if the body wasn't rigged by agreement to be destructible by its own experience – a body has agreed already to be destroyed by its own experience, you see – you could push it into a buzz saw, and when you pulled it off the parts would simply reassemble. If there was no experience factor added to the body, that wouldn't be painful either. But if you add an experience factor to the body, then you let people in for pain and destruction.

I'll go over that again. This is not wrong with him: that he played a game. But that he played a game and forgot that he played a game: that's wrong with him. That could be interpreted in a dozen different ways. You could say, „Well, you mean he's taken life seriously, he's forgotten it's a game?“ Yes, that’s what's wrong with him. There's one — there's one interpretation of the same thing.

Old-time education could be defined in this wise – in this wise (it's horrible): placing data in the recalls of others. Therefore, old-time education accepts hypnotism, does not really allow for the usableness of the information, does not analyze doingness and completely avoids any havingness, which of course permits nobody to be anything. But putting data into the recalls of others causes others to rely on experience, not perception. These are two different things. Remembered experience is quite different than perception and estimation of the situation.

Another interpretation of it: He was playing football. He played football when he was fourteen, in high school, and he got a busted leg, and now he doesn't remember that his leg has ever been broken. See, he played a game. He's forgotten he ever played football; he has no memory of ever playing football when he was fourteen.

Now, I'm not running down old-time education completely; I'm just burying it.

It takes unknowingness, joined to a game condition, to bring about aberration. And it takes both! It takes a game condition and it takes unknowingness about it to bring on aberration.

Scientology has an entirely different category of action. Now, this has not at this time been laid out perfectly, all squared up at the edges and so forth. But it goes something like this: You offer data for the assimilation and use of others and facilitate their absorption of it to the end of permitting them a better control of a better life. That would be a much longer definition, but it actually is more factual.

Then what about the fellow — if you please — what about the fellow who doesn't remember that he lived before this life? That is a case — strictly a case of Wow! Why, he's forgotten a whole section of life. Its amazing, though, how little of it is now still aberrative to him. Do you know what's the most aberrative to him in this whole forgotten section? The part that he had already forgotten while he was alive. The forgetter inside the forgetter. You get the idea? That's most aberrative to him.

If you're going to attempt education at all, then it has to be a game with a goal. There has to be some reason why. And unless you add that into your definition you're going to get nowhere.

He was a steeplechase jockey in his last life. And as he got on toward middle age, he of course knocked off steeplechase jockeying and forgot entirely — forgot entirely — that he had ever had a fall. And he used to sit around the pub and tell people, you know, he'd say, „You know, I... huh! I was always a lucky jockey. Never fell off a horse in my whole life.“ Of course his cronies knew he was nuts. But he didn't. After the last fall, which fractured his skull for the fifth time, he started telling people this. He believed it himself.

So when we offer a person a datum, that datum must be under the self-determinism of the other person, not in his recalls. Get the difference. It must be at the disposal of his own determinism. And if it is not, then it cannot be used thoroughly in living.

I had a preclear of considerable interest to the organization all of a sudden utter a ruinous statement, as far as this preclear's repute was concerned. Everybody had always thought this preclear was a pretty sane preclear, you see? Only they never got anyplace on the case. Only they never got anywhere on the case. Audit the person, you know, audit her and audit her and audit her and audit her, and nothing ever happened. They thought she was perfectly sane and okay. And one day she confided, in the most confidential tone of voice, that such and such an auditor was crazy. Why? They had this preclear on an E-Meter — this auditor that was crazy had the preclear on an E-Meter — asking the preclear, of all things, for a moment of pain. And she knew she'd never had any pain in her whole life! The preclear knew she had never had a moment of pain in her whole life!

So we give them data in such a wise as to give them control of the data, and then permit them to use that data, align and evaluate and apply that data to specific beingnesses and actions in life. And we never let a datum hang up in the air without anything with which to unite.

Now, let's look that over, since it was a part of medical history that this person had had some very severe operations. And the weird part of it was that these operations had to be buried because they were kind of antisocial, you know? And the preclear buried them very thoroughly from everybody, and herself. And she had never had any pain in her whole life. And then she went on to confide to people that she had never hurt anybody; never at anytime, anyplace, had ever hurt anybody.

Now, what I just said originally about the avoidance system of education happens to be any preclear you ever processed. He's sitting there in his mother's valence. He has a very bad heart, terrible! You say, "Anybody you ever know have a bad heart?"

And, of course, immediately the staff auditors took a look at this person, and dong-dong-dong, here goes the wagon, as far as they were concerned. When they audited her next time, when she was next audited, they entirely changed their tactics. They sat there and tried to find the preclear, tried to get her into a little bit of communication of one kind or another. And cognited that she had never answered a question, really — always was offbeat. Managed to get the preclear upscale, out of psychosis. But the person actually was a psychotic, and walking around, and apparently was perfectly sane. And until something like that came up, nobody knew it.

"Oh," he says, "yes. Mother."

But what was the exact anatomy of this? It's the same anatomy of any insanity: Insanity is an unknowing games condition. That's all it is. With this little fillip thrown in: Part of the game was insane. Part of the game was the exact postulate of insanity. Person didn't know; played this game.

And you say, "Well, all right. Do you ever remember a time when Mother's heart was bad?"

Now, we try to get somebody over a circumstance in this lifetime that seems to be very arduous. We try to get them over this circumstance. We don't get them over this circumstance. We run them according to all the rules and so forth. And after we've run them long enough, we get back to an old Dianetic rule: Basic- basic shows up.

"Oh, yes, yes. Lots of times," and so on.

Fellow has got a peg leg. And we try to get him over his worry about the peg leg. He just can't operate with a peg leg. And we try to straighten him out so he can really walk with a peg leg, and we just don't manage it. And we run out all the incident, and we run out him making people peg-legged, and we do all kinds of interesting things. And then one fine day, what happens? We find out that he's been peglegged for three lives. The unknowing games condition is „to have no leg“ — not being peg-legged. That's a win. You got it? The game was how to get rid of a leg. In three consecutive lives he'd managed it. And then the auditor sat there and tried to audit him out of a win, which is a no-game condition, of course. A peg leg was a no-game condition; it was a win. What was the incident? Getting rid of a leg, that was the game.

You say, "Well now, what about your own heart? Do you suppose that could have anything to do with it?"

And if you ever wanted to see buckets of tears come off of a preclear, they came off of this one when he was run back through something very interesting: He had cut off somebody's leg! And he was so upset about it, and it was so deeply buried and so much in present time, and so on, that it had ridden with him for three lives. He felt so bad about it, he never could face it. And when the auditor finally made him brace up to it, on „getting rid of legs“ and „keeping legs from going away“...

"Yes, I dare say it has a great deal to do with it."

That was the technique, by the way, that did it. And the same technique is working right now at the HGC on a preclear — or did last week — who has a bad leg: keeping the leg from going away; keeping the other leg from going away. You have to run both sides of the body, by the way. You can't just run one side of the body on anything, because the body sympathizes with the other side of the body.

No data would fall out. It's all in there in complete black basalt.

Here we had an unknowing games condition. The unknowing games condition, including depriving another human being of a leg. Well yes, we know all about the overt act-motivator sequence: The fellow accumulates too many overt acts, he gets some motivators. So he'd handed himself the motivator, and he'd done it for three lives. That it never gave the other person back a leg, seemed to have missed his view. Now there, you see, was a peg leg, life and history of. The peg leg was not the incident. It was somebody else's leg, and it was cause-distance-effect, as far as the preclear was concerned.

I've had people sit and tell me exactly what was wrong with them. They'd studied it all out. It was still wrong with them, still wrong with them. They hadn't gotten rid of a scrap of it. Well, how come? It was probably all the wrongness they had left. It was probably the only lesson they had ever learned.

Now, if you know that and you know that well, and you look that over thoroughly, you will see, then, the anatomy of any case that presents itself with some peculiarity — there's some peculiar manifestation that does not at once surrender. It's this cause- distance-effect. Preclear did it to somebody, that's what's wrong with the preclear. You got the idea? Did it to somebody, now he can't remedy it, he can't straighten it out, he feels he should, and so on.

Now, anything that is wrong with anybody is simply a lesson they've learned. Well, people know this so they avoid lessons.

We know that it is sane to have two-way communication, to have a two-way game. This is sane. You can go on forever doing that, no difficulties. But to have a game which is only cause-distance- effect is so one-sided that we call it a game condition. It is so far from truth, so far from usability, and it is such a lie. It's always going to be cause-distance-effect the other way. Get the idea?

But the first thing that got wrong with them was to avoid a lesson, and then this permitted them thereafter to avoid more lessons, and every lesson they avoided could then victimize them. So here we go, here we go.

But a thetan says, „No, no, that’s not true. I can do anything I want to anything, and nothing I ever have will suffer, and therefore I will never suffer because nothing can be done to me.“

How many ways could you devise to simply teach somebody a great deal about education? How many ways could you possibly do so? Well, how many auditing techniques do you know? There's quite a few, quite a few. But in view of the fact that you're doing an educational activity, it of course depends in a large measure upon communication. So communication must be demonstrated to exist before any education can be undertaken that will become education in the Scientology sense, not another engram.

The hell it can't be done to him. I have said a few times that nothing can really be done to a thetan directly. Now, get the difference between something can be done to a thetan's possessions. It's only his possessions that can be affected. But, yet, this will do something to him, because he's postulated that it will.

You can always beat somebody's head in and say, "That'll teach him." It will, the rest of his life. It'll teach him every day. To what? Lord knows! Completely random, completely random.

The reason people are afraid to lose things is because it is very painful. They don't like to lose things. They postulated that they had this thing and they weren't going to lose it. And then they lost it. Well, the reason people don't want to have things is because they lose them, and when they lose things it's very painful. They eventually will get to that. In anything anybody is having any trouble with, he's run that cycle, you see? He can't have it because he'll lose it. And he doesn't dare lose it because it'd be painful. Got the idea? So something can be done to the thetan via his possessions, but only to his possessions. Nothing can ever be done directly to a thetan. So the trick is, one has to attach him to a possession, and then hurt the possession.

Supposing the phrase in that head-beating was "He is no earthly good." We actually got somebody from Northwest Airlines, I think it was, that had this phrase in the bank, and everything he had done on the ground had been a total failure. He'd taken to be a flyboy, and he hated being a flyboy; but he was no "earthly" good.

All right. Now, it is very true that cause-distance-effect and game condition no-game condition all apply. If any one of you ever start out auditing out of somebody, in an effort to remedy his circumstance, a bad shoulder, and expect it to stay out, then you have not heard me today. Sure enough, you can patch up a bad shoulder; you can patch it up. But to inquire why it is a bad shoulder, and remedy the condition known as bad shoulder, is to remedy an unknowing games condition whereby he had an effect on a shoulder he did not possess. Now, of course, a thetan can have an effect on his own body. But this is short-circuited as far as he's concerned. That's a short circuit.

Some other fellow with the same, identical phrase becomes a parson. Man will insist on using his power of choice and he'll insist on doing something about anything. But unless his power of choice is in plain sight, and unless his somethingness is in very good view, unless the individual has a command over something and knows what he has a command over of, you know – that's very important.

Now we take up this thing called complexity again. I have to tell you about game conditions and unknowing game conditions because of two other things. We have this thing called complexity, and I started talking to you about these complexities. He wants to make life more complicated, evidently. Well, he doesn't even have to want to. It so happens that everybody he is in agreement with will do this very fascinating thing — he'll do this very fascinating thing: Everybody he's connected with, in this age, is apparently motivator hungry. And they start convincing him he's doing things to them that he is not doing to them. Got that? So a fellow becomes convinced that he can easily hurt people.

I've heard it said that when you're training lions you really should know it's a lion you're training. See, I've heard of this. Some cautious souls have brought this up from time to time.

It's actually pretty hard to do. People go around minding their manners, trying not to give offense to people, and so forth. That isn't what hurts people. Taking a thetan's possessions and tearing them up, taking his body and tearing its head off or rendering it a cripple for the next forty years, something like that, that is doing something to somebody, you understand? That's order of magnitude.

If you're handling a human being, why – huh! Lord knows what you're handling. You might be handling a lion, or you... Look at these little kids. They run up and down the street snapping cap pistols at each other, and so on. You can't tell from one minute to the next who they are. Who are they? Oh, I don't know. They're anybody: Davy Crockett or Buffalo Bill or Nathan Hale or – he got hanged – somebody. They're being somebody. They're being somebody they're not. It's only when somebody becomes somebody he is that he gets worried.

Now, because that has occurred, he now has the idea that things can be done to his possessions. And so he gets the other idea, you see, that — two other ideas: One, that he can't have, and he better not have possessions is one of them. And the other one is that he can be hurt or has been hurt. And then he will tell people this. But he doesn't tell them the actual circumstance. He tells them another circumstance. He says, „When you sneeze in my face, it causes terrible pain in the back of my head. 1 wish you wouldn't do that.“ It does?

All right. Systems of education, then, must only take into account the unharmful aspects of communication, and the formulas of communication, and the facts of communication, and an alignment of the data to be transmitted so that it may be employed in living by the other person.

I asked somebody this last night. I refused to audit somebody last night. Somebody was sitting there just begging to be audited, see? They didn't quite realize it, but they were really begging to be audited. And I kept asking him what was so important about it. And I kept asking him this and that. The person was begging to be audited because the person kept trying to persuade me that I had been guilty of an overt act toward the person. Never laid hands on the person in my life — never shot him, never did anything to him. You know? Didn't ever hit him, kick him, nothing. And that's all I told him. I said, „Now, let's look this situation over very carefully. Have I ever beaten you?“

Terrific dependency, though, on communication, isn't it? Communication and its whole formula. Every time that was avoided when you were a little kid in school, you didn't learn something. There was something you didn't learn. That's for sure. They didn't bother to get your attention, they didn't bother to tell you where it applied; there you went. And to this day you probably think two and eight make twelve. Of course that's your postulate. If you were good enough they would, but that's beside the point.

And the person said, „Huh! No.“

Now, education oddly enough contains a nearly complete – outside of the definitions of it, itself – rendition in the old Logics of Dianetics. And those are the anatomy of education. They might be called the axioms of education. They were totally missing in the field of education.

I said, „Have I ever gouged an eye out?“

Some of those were almost known back in the days when they used to teach a subject called logic and argumentation. Wonderful subject. I had a textbook on it once. Just gorgeous. Such simplicity! How you defeat an opponent in a debate. Wonderful list. I mean, they took up the subject, they really meant to defeat an opponent in a debate; they had a complete anatomy of how you defeated somebody in a debate, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate and they said so; how you distracted his attention. It ran down to the most mechanical things you ever heard of: Have him called from the wings occasionally. It did. I mean, it was a wonderful textbook. Practical! Wish I'd studied it.

„No.“

Anyhow, one of the little data in there – one of the data in there was the most marvelous thing you ever heard of. "Never engage the actual data of your opponent in a debate. Always engage his sources." How fiendish!

„Have I ever torn an ear off?“

The fellow says, "Two hundred and ninety-one tons of uranium were used last year." He's demonstrating the value of uranium, you see, and the expenditures on uranium, and so on.

„No.“

You don't say "Ah," or "Well, what do you know." You never agree with him. A debate's an argument. It makes that very clear in this textbook – printed by the way, about 1866 or '67 – at no time do you agree with him. You find out "Who said that? Where did you get that datum?"

„Did I ever kick you in the stomach?“

"Oh," he says, "that's Borks and Snorgelberg, their mining reports, published in the Miners Quarterly," and so forth.

„No.“

And you say, "The Miners Quarterly of what organization?"

„Did I ever feed you poison?“

And he says, "Why, the United Mine Workers, of course."

„No.“

And you say, "Ahhhh."

„Did I ever cost you your home and mother?“

It wouldn't have mattered if it was the Republican National Committee, you'd have still said "Ahhhh."

„No.“

I think they killed everybody off that knew the subject. I think they all got annihilated for it, so we don't have the subject anymore. It was a gorgeous textbook. I don't even have a copy of it anymore.

„Well, why is it, then, every time I ask you something or say something to you here, you flinch?“ This was a hell of a problem. The person sat there and chewed the corner of the napkin, and was very fussed up about the whole problem. And finally extricated himself from the fact that I'd never done this to him. It was a horrible thing for him to realize, because it was a much less complex situation. And I refused to let him have a complex situation. Now, that was just mean of me. That was all there was to it. It was merely mean of me. I wasn't auditing him. Actually, probably dropped his tone, but increased his ARC with me. He had to go find somebody else to beat him up. Get the idea? I just refused to let him put me in the role of executioner, and we had an entirely different kind of an activity going on than he expected.

But anyway, if we want to relay a datum completely so that it fixes forever and it's not under anybody's control, we have to lose or lie about the source; we have to get the source out of sight completely. We have to give it some other source. Then we have to alter it a little bit. And then we have to deliver it with enormous authority; and if anybody says that isn't the authority, or the authority is nothing... has nothing to do with the datum, then let's back up the whole artillery on them. Let's flunk them, let's put them back half a term, let's send letters home to their parents. Sounds kind of wild, doesn't it? Just because they said that Snorgel and Fuggelbaum did so-and-so, why, all these penalties get lined up. If you don't believe it, you've had it.

In view of the fact that this person never had any processing, it was quite remarkable that he was almost all the time in session. And in view of the fact he was associating with people who aren't auditors, I pity him. That'd be pretty grim, wouldn't it? Always in session. „Look what you have done to me. Do something about it“ — standard dramatization, see?

Well now, that is old-time education. What good is the datum? It's no good at all. So Snorgel and Fuggelbaum said this – so what?

Well, all right. Now, that was a mean thing to do to this person, but I had peace. That was the only thing I was asking for. Undoubtedly dropped this person's general tone here, for a little while. But what would I have done if I'd really wanted to have improved the person's health? What would I have had to have said? Had to have said something else.

Einstein – here, I'll give you the reverse, now. Einstein had a lot to do, they say, with inventing the A-bomb. Well, it was invented on his authority or something. It was appropriated for on his authority. And we get down the line after a while, and Einstein at no time can say, "The A-bomb will not explode tonight." He can't say that and have it happen. What the hell is this about authority? What difference does it make?

I would have done an entirely different approach. It would have been ten times as effective. Except, I couldn't count on the person's unhypnotic state. I couldn't count on this, so I didn't do it. If it'd been a Scientologist talking to me, why, I just would have cut loose. Person starts begging for a motivator, see? Just begging for the motivator. He kind of „You know what you've done. And that certainly disturbed things. And your demand that this file series get... I don't know, I've already worked day and night for a week.“ You know, that kind of thing — somebody who would just stand there, begging for a motivator, and so on. I don't do this, but I could do this; it'd be quite effective: I'd simply say, „Well, that's nothing compared to what I did to you last week!“

Actually, it has nothing to do, really, with the behavior of the bomb at all. The bomb explodes or it doesn't explode, and that's all. It's an open-and-closed fact. Mostly because Einstein himself is outweighed by a tremendous number of people who all agreed on the backtrack that atom bombs exploded. He's outvoted! So you get pushed into the horrible position that I'm pushed into of simply categorizing the majority decisions.

The person says, „Did to me last week? What do you mean?“

But the whole alliance of authority and education is apt to bring people into a fixed state of mind. If what is being taught is true then they themselves will recognize its truth, since nobody can be taught, thoroughly, anything that he himself does not already have some knowledge of No matter how ghostily, no matter how thinly, there's some knowledge of it.

„Oh, you remember what I did to you last week. Do you remember my kicking you down the stairs, and then leaping the whole flight, and landing exactly on the middle of your spine and breaking it? Why, you just got out of the hospital yesterday. How could you forget?“

For instance, you can't be taught usefully – so that you can use it – any datum about the human mind that you have not already agreed to. You can be taught an invention concerning the human mind if you are taught that it is an invention. Otherwise, you would have to be taught hypnotically, merely given a new conviction which you could not use or alter. That would have to be done on an hypnotic level. What good would it be? Well, it'd add a new datum. And if enough people were hypnotized into believing this, that all brains had Ford coils in them or something, I imagine the genetic line would grow Ford coils. But it hasn't yet. Remember that; it hasn't yet.

The person would have to get rid of that one, see? They'd say, „Ah, come on!“

In other words, we learn most easily that to which we have subscribed. This is why so many people flunk science. Science is the doggonedest mass of invention you ever cared to read, but it's a rather uniformly agreed-upon invention which is built on top of an already top-heavy series of inventions or postulates which are agreed upon. This already top-heavy mass of agreements, then, needs no further inventions, I assure you. And yet, just for the sake of teaching somebody something, these things get invented. You get the idea?

So we have this mechanism of more game, more complexity, more problem. And that is the direction you audit in. If you audit in the direction of more game, more complexity, more problem, why, you bring people upscale. If you just insist that there wasn't a game, I'm afraid that you may disconnect from this particular dramatization, but you don't handle them as people. Get the difference?

Now, it's a sure test of a teacher whether he knows his stuff or not, the number of data which he insists on everyone assimilating without question. If he insists that a great number of data be assimilated without further analysis or question in any way, shape or form, we know this boy doesn't know his business. He's scared. Somehow or another he feels that nobody must be permitted to examine these data. So he's doing something else. He's doing something else.

I didn't want to handle this person last night. I don't see any reason I have to handle everybody I meet. I knew a fellow driving a truck down the road the other day. I wasn't handling him; I wasn't driving his truck for him. Honest. I... I — driving along behind him. He was driving his own truck. He run hisself into the ditch. I didn't do it. Honest! I really didn't. I mean, I didn't drive him into the ditch. In fact, his steering wheel actually was too greasy to get a good grip on; it was impossible to have turned him over on that side road. And that he was going five miles an hour had nothing whatsoever to do with it. I wasn't even mad at him. I was containing my anger very, very nicely. I didn't have a thing to do with it. And besides, he just ran over in the ditch a little bit. You know?

Now, educationally, it is absolutely necessary for the teacher to preserve the power of choice of the student over the data which he is taught. And if it is not in agreement with the experience of the student, and will not be found to be true in the environment of the student, he permits the student to examine this and say so, and operate accordingly. Only in this wise would you have anything used or useful.

Now, that’s the kind of conversation you want to suspect from a preclear. „Say, I never did anything to my mother, and she was always very mean to me. I never did anything to her at all. I was always good to her.“ Daaah! Funny part of it is, is the person really believes this. There's something wrong with this. It'd be impossible to be a child to a mother without raising hell with them. See, it's just not possible to be good to a mother.

Engineering fails mostly because all of the originators in the field of engineering have died off. They're way back on the track.

Birth. Take birth, for instance, so on. Well now, a thetan tells you he didn't do that. He appropriated the product! The thetan appropriated the product of birth — had something to do with it. It's connected.

A chap came to me recently – he rather surprised me; I was a little bit overwhelmed by this experience. He came to me in London, and the appointment was made by cable two or three days before the fact. The first whisper of it was about two weeks before the fact, and then the exact appointment was made about three days before the meeting. And he wanted to come by and see me at my office in London. He said he wanted to talk to me. He didn't say it was urgent.

There's always the protesting preclear. Now, you get a preclear who has systems of protest. What do you do about these things? More game, more problem, more complexity, and always in the direction of a games condition. Always audit them with the preclear at cause and something else at effect. „You make your body stop. When I say stop, then you make your body stop.“ See? Never this: „When I say stop, why, the body you're running will stop.“ You always put it on a games condition basis: „You make your body stop.“ That doesn't just put them on self-determinism, that puts them on a game condition.

So I sat there wondering what this could be all about, as the chap has a rather famous name. He's probably the leading boy employed at this time by the U.S. Air Forces in the field of aerodynamic research.

Self-determinism, by the way, is a game condition. Narrowing down and individuating one's ability to control his environment, of course, renders things terribly complex, because it leaves all of these things out of control. See? It's very simple to control everything in the environment: Just stop it and leave it that way. The streets are all crowded and so on, and you can't stand the confusion (you decide you can't stand it; you postulate that for the next five minutes you can't stand it), just stop everybody. Just stop them there.

And I thought, "What on earth does this fellow want to see me for?" I haven't done anything, honest. You know?

Then you'd be a good thetan if you also stopped and preserved them — and we've added in complexity. Next thing you know, you wouldn't be able to stop a whole street full of people at one postulate. You'd have slipped. You see why? You got too many other things to keep your eye on at the same time. You would be thinking of the sanitation department — its protest at the bodies when they started to rot, so on. You'd avoid this and avoid that and so on. You got a complex game going.

And he sailed into the office, he sat down, he took one of my Kools, he accepted a Coca-Cola, rejected an offer of some vodka – said it was not national with him – and chitter-chatted with me for exactly one-half an hour, talking about some recent developments.

Now I'll give you a process — give you a specific process that takes care of this, completely aside from the rationale of communication. I gave you one. It's „How many vias could you communicate to that thing on?“ Just any semblance of that problem. „In order to tell that person standing over on the counter the time of day, how many people could you tell to tell other people before the message would have arrived at that person standing on the counter?“ See, that'd be vias by terminals. You get the idea?

I agreed with him, I thought these were fine, understood them a little bit, got some kind of an inkling of where he was going, fumbled with it a bit, said that's fine. He intimated that he was looking for some much younger man than himself, since he was about seventy-one and was right in there with the Wright brothers, to replace him someday, and intimated – oh, how cursorily – that someday he might want me to process somebody for him. But this was quite obviously not the object of his visit.

Because the actual complexity is a Gordian knot called communication, and it's communication that you're cutting apart. If it was just complexity that you were worried about, we would have all the complexities of the universe to worry about. We have complexity in only one part, and that's communication — complexity of communication. And you cut the Gordian knot of complexity of communication, and you've done it. Now, that's one technique. It's a very, very good technique.

Well, he looked at his watch, went outside, got in the U.S. embassy car, went back to the airport, climbed aboard a U.S. Army Air Forces airplane, and was flown on to his destination, which was Brussels – a large conference in Brussels – and then flown home. That was all he wanted to do in London. And I sat there and I scratched my head, I couldn't figure out what in the hell was going on here. Didn't have any idea at all. No idea at all.

Another technique — a whole series of techniques — is „Mock up a confusion.“ Now, that run, without any understanding on your part at all, or the preclear's, and so on, will still work, oddly enough, because it handles rest points and stable data, which are comparable to rest points and confusions and random data. You see? It handles this. But there's another way to run it, and that's simply: „Mock up a worse confusion. Well, that's fine, but can't you make a confusion that's worse than that? Well, that's good. Good. You did do that. All right, that's fine. Now mock up a worse confusion than that. All right. Now mock up a worse confusion.“ See?

And finally – after a lot of time went by I finally figured out what was wrong. The guy was lonesome! That's all. Haven't heard from him since. Told him to drop by here, he said sure he would. He isn't home yet. But this is an interesting thing.

And he'll tell you eventually that he can't think of anything worse. And he'll do all sorts of things. But he will do it. And eventually, what do you know? He will do this technique of „Mock up a worse confusion“ by mocking up somebody mocking up a worse confusion, or something like this. He'll suddenly come back to fundamentals.

But in his conversation it was rather easy to detect the fact that in his field he alone, he felt, was running on choice of data and theory. Everybody else in his field, his own associates and assistants, particularly his assistants, were all running fixedly on data which had now become agreed-upon data in the field of aerodynamics, but which is not necessarily true at all. In fact, I never have been able to figure out – and neither could he – how anybody ever applied calculus to an airfoil, and managed to build the same airfoil off the same mathematical sheet. He said he always inquired whether or not they had sent the test model over for measurements in building the actual model, and never felt comfortable unless they did.

And now I'm going to give you a key process, which is one of the heftiest assist processes that I've ever discovered. And this is a killer. Do you notice games conditions contains enemies and individualities? Well, enemies and individualities — you invent an enemy on a preclear for a while. Have him invent enemies and he does real well. „Invent worse enemies,“ he does better. But „Invent an individuality that could cope with it“ and „Invent a comparable circumstance,“ now that would be quite interesting. That will blow engrams — that technique, just as it is. See?

But this man was a realist, terrific realist. If you couldn't think about it and look about it, you couldn't know anything about it, so what use was it? And that was the way he operated. That was it.

The fellow is stuck in birth. All right. „Invent an individuality to cope with it. Invent a comparable circumstance. Invent another individuality to cope with it. Good. Invent another comparable circumstance. Invent another individuality to cope with it. Invent another comparable circumstance.“ Do you get that idea?

I am afraid that in the field of knowledge, to me nothing, including Scientology, is sacred. In fact, I'd have to be argued with and shot at awfully long for anybody to convince me that a datum was an unalterable datum which must never again be reviewed. I'm afraid I would be very hard to convince this way. Of course there'd be ways to do this. You could kidnap all of you and hold you for ransom until I admitted that the moon was green cheese and – oh, I'd probably say the moon was made out of green cheese, because I'd go easy the other way too.

All right. Now we run this complexity into it. You invent an individuality that couldn't cope with it at all, and invent a worse circumstance. Now, that is running it on a complexity. Do you have that? „Invent an individuality that couldn't cope with it at all,“ and „Invent a worse circumstance.“ You just exaggerate it in the direction of complexity. See?

I am not trying to hold up an inviolable integrity at the expense of something or other, I know not what, don't you see?

So, you can take any good process and you can complicate it toward complication, with greater results on the preclear.

The only fate I'd know which was worse than death would be "totally fixed on the entire track with all data which had ever been invented and agreed upon." That's the only fate I'd know that'd be worse than death. But there's another fate which is almost as bad, and that is to shy off every datum simply because it's been agreed upon, see? You have to remain fluid in both quarters. In other words, you don't have to accept every datum as a fixed, unalterable datum, and you don't have to shy off anything that looks like a fixed, unalterable datum. You don't have to do either one. Don't have to accept them, don't have to reject them. Yawn once in a while. It's not that important.

Thank you.

So here, here we have, worked out in Scientology, a great many data which are apparently the common denominators of agreements on the whole track, arrived at evidently by the bulk of the people who perceive them now. And people have become disabused or have disabused themselves of their participation in their creation, and many of these people are shying off of them and avoiding them, because if they thought again what they had thought once it'd evidently kill them. And so as we inspect this we arrive at certain definite methods and agreements by which we can reach these and turn them around one way, or fix them better the other way, or do something with them. In other words, we are actually capable of twisting and turning the various fixednesses and unfixednesses of existence.

[End of Lecture]

Now, sometimes we do this well, sometimes we do this poorly; but we always unfix as easily as the thing was unfixed in the first place, and we always fix as easily as the thing was fixed in the first place. We always do those things, see? We can always unfix something that was awfully unfixed.

You know, a fellow's walking down the street and a thought flashes through his mind that maybe some of his behavior is not entirely masculine, maybe it is slightly effeminate. In other words, the datum is there "Maybe I'm a girl." Well, it's... You see, it's very nebulous. You know, maybe – he's just playing a game with himself of worry, something. We come along, we pat him on the shoulder, he tells us what he's worried about. We don't even have to tell him "You're not a girl," see? I mean, he just tells us what he was worried about, he – boom! See, it's gone that quick.

He's walking down the street now with another datum – another occurrence. He's walking down the street with a datum that he's a man. That's pretty fixed, isn't it? He's walking down the street and he's wearing men's clothes and a man's head and he's got a man's haircut, and he's really convinced he's a man. Now, we would unfix that one with a little more difficulty.

Of course, they do it easily in Hollywood, but we're not going that way.

Do you see, though, that the relative fixation of the data has a direct bearing upon our ability to unfix it. You got it?

Now, we can easily fix in his head that he's a man, can't we? He already thinks so. And we might have some success in fixing in his head this other earlier datum that he's effeminate. See, here's fixing and unfixing data, see? He's got the little ghosty notion that some of his actions are effeminate. We hear this, and we don't permit him to complete his communication, we shut it off in some fashion or another, we turn it around a little bit and we ask him very searchingly whether anybody has mentioned this lately to him or not. And then we look very learned and we say, "You're sure – you're sure you don't remember it? Oh," we say, "it's a bit occluded, eh?" He's wondering what's happening here, you know?

And we say, "Well now, I'll tell you how you cure this. I'll tell you how you cure this. One of the best ways I know to cure this would be to overcome any impulse whatsoever to wear feminine clothes or to use feminine things, you see, by simply buying some and putting them on the dresser. Therefore it'd be very easy for you, you see, to realize that they're not yours and that you have nothing whatsoever to do with them. And every time you look at them, get the idea that they are not associated with you in any way."

In other words, by this way and that way we might have some chance of fixing the idea in his head that he's a girl.

But by paralleling life we can take a lazy man's look at it, and a fellow walks down the street and he thinks he's a man, and we pat him on the back and you say, yes, he's a man. That's the easy look, you see? He says, "I'm worried about being a girl" – he's worried about it, that's good enough for us. Talk it over and he's no longer worried about being a girl. Don't you see? That's very easy. It's very simple.

Well, we do much better than that. We teach people how their minds get fixed and unfixed. We do better than that. Then we show them how they can fix and unfix these various agreements and things and postulates. That's the business we're in. We do this well.

Here's an organization, a business organization, that even we consider disorderly. Some inkling has come through to its boss – to its boss – some inkling has come through to the boss that this might possibly be a prevailing circumstance throughout the organization.

Well, we could straighten up his personnel and his comm lines. And we could look over this situation; we could do pretty well with this. Realize that if we didn't facilitate the communications in the organization that it would remain as confused as it was. We could do something about this. We could alter the situation more in the direction of a tolerable unit.

Now, what do we mean by a tolerable unit? Well, we could say "The unit works better." That's fine. "It better meets its goals" is a better statement. If a man is trying to be more a man, we can make him more a man, just achieving his goals; or we can get him to change his goals.

Now, a business that thinks it's confused, we could come along and educate it that it is totally confused. We could. We could simply go into nooks and crannies and pull old junk out, and keep calling management's attention to how this person and that person in the organization had been stowing stuff away, and forgetting stuff, and so on; and offer him no solution to this, you see, and carefully tell him every time to refrain from boiling over about it and not to get mad concerning it, because the entire tone of the organization depends utterly upon his own mood. We'd produce chaos! I mean, the place would look horrible before you got through. I mean, you'd really have chaos.

You could say, "Now, don't say I told you, because I don't want to get in trouble, and don't mention it to anybody, but actually your stock department, you see, is keeping all of the out-of-date stock and refuses to order any of the up-to-date stock. And then it won't release any stock to anybody else in the rest of the shop. And the fellow there has to be treated very carefully, because he's in a kind of a bad condition. Now, you treat him very carefully, and so forth, and don't go in suddenly and mess all this up, because your attention really is needed over here on much more important things." Get what you'd do here. It'd be pretty wild, wouldn't it?

So, you could intensify any given situation, or simplify any given situation; or, by the correct handling of data, return to any given situation its own self-determinism over what it's doing.

Just by the process of education alone, just by the process of educating the people immediately associated with living a marital life, on the subject of "These are some data about life. You pays your money and takes your chance. There they are. You want to look them over, okay. If you don't want to look them over, all right. Because this is kind of the way it seems to be. Let's look around and see if that's the way it seems to be." Orient them a little bit, give them some stable data, restimulate some stable data. All of a sudden, why, their environment is liable to straighten out and run much more smoothly. This you would call counseling. Or would you call it education?

Now, here then is a tremendous field in Scientology, and it does appear that all you're doing is not just increasing the learning rate of a person, but increasing his power of choice over what he has learned. And if you can do that, why, then he can lead a much better and more successful life.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]