This is the second half of the evening lecture December the 4th and we’re going to cover now something which some of you have seen before but which becomes far far more valuable than anything it uh… ever had as an evaluation before. Much more valuable now, and that is the logics six and seven as they were written.

First hour of try night, December the 4th, we’re going to cover here the logics. The last evening lectures I covered these Qs.

Logic six says absolutes are unobtainable. That is just a forthright uh… effort in this universe to try to step on and stop somewhere along its track the terrific idea of absolutes.

All right, the logics are something which evidently apply quite broadly and uh… are not necessarily fixed for all universes but are quite general to universes and are certainly very specific for this universe. Logics would consist of methods of thinking. There could be many, many methods of thinking.

Absolute good, absolute evil, absolute right and absolute wrong, why are they absolute? Because they’re by arbitrary definition only. A girl is good who pays her dues to the church or whatever they pay to churches. A fellow is evil if he does not properly work at his job and so on. There’s this whole series of control definition… agreements have… have really nothing to do with any high level of… of operational information.

You take the decimal system. Uh… the decimal system is a method of thinking about object;, and particles, and so on. And it says if you take ten of them and then multiply them by ten all you have to do is add another zero. Uh… that’s a very fascinating system and this has a great deal of argument, however, from something I think is called the sept-signal system, which I think is by twelves or something like that. Sixes, twelves, and so forth; they claim this is a much, much better numerical system.

Now let’s take a look at this universe and find out how this applies. I think it’s uh… what is absolute zero, minus 173, or 273, what is that? 273?

It goes along so and so and does such and such. And the odd part of it is, is it forms a different structure of logic. So you could change logic by changing the basic postulates on which the logic is based.

„273.“

You could simply say, you could simply say, now it is logical to state the plus and the minus of a thing, and that is all you should state, the plus and minus of the thing. Plus you should never state the plus without stating the minus. And that is going to be logic.

273, minus 273 centigrade, isn’t it? And uh… uh… nobody’s ever gotten down there. They… they get down down down down, to Kelvin zero, that’s right and they get down there and uh… they claim theoretically that all motion stops there. Well, of course, they’re trying to stop motion to get down there. That’s very interesting because you could mock up a minus 273 degrees below zero with great ease.

Now we would say something like that, you get something interesting about – the logical statement will be: I think I would like to eat dinner, perhaps I will not. And that would be a reasonable statement, and that would be a universe called maybe. A universe… a universe in which homo sapiens is quite at home.

All you do is go out here about three, four thousand miles out and where you don’t get any… any radio RF or anything like that… no RF or anything like that and… and just mock up some space and say if there’s no heat or cold in it. And there’s nothing in it. And if you mock up some space and say there’s nothing in it, then you have no motion in it. And if minus 273 degrees below zero is defined as no motion… Now when we say absolutes are unobtainable we find out theta-wise they’re obtainable by postulate. But that is by the introduction of an arbitrary, isn’t it?

All social intercourse is apparently a long series of maybes. You know, you say, „How do you do? I don’t care how you do.“ „Would you have something to eat? I hope you won’t eat too much.“ Except the second maybe in social intercourse is never stated.

Postulate – you just simply say bow bow, and that’s that. But as a practical matter in this universe when you take MEST and start to reduce it down, and reduce its heat down and reduce its mass down and reduce it down and reduce it down you get to, I don’t know how low they’ve gotten, maybe 270, I mean I don’t think they’ve gotten that low.

So it’s a long series of maybes and if you want to find somebody who’s been very very social for a long time you will find out his ARC relationships lie all in a ball. All wound up in one small tight ball, because everyone of them has got a plus on it and a minus on it, and the minus is never stated.

Oh, they haven’t. They’ve now got within a tenth of a degree; they’ll never get there. Same way, we go up the other way and we talk about a pure metal. Talk about a pure metal, and it’s always… it’s always at least uh… 2,000ths of a percent or something like that impure.

Now in view of the fact that Scientology is the science of knowing how to know, we have to have some definition of knowledge. Now these logics as they are written here have to be rewritten slightly for the echelon of Scientology in which we are operating, which is to say the make-break of universes.

They don’t even obtain a pure metal; it’s always 99.99 or something like that. pure. Uh… that’s… that’s… it’d be an absolute so as soon as we start in on this we… we just don’t get an absolute for this universe. This universe could be destroyed the moment it ran into an absolute wrong, or it could run, into an absolute right; the universe would be destroyed.

This is very very true of homo sapiens, these logics, but they have to be refined just a little bit in order to fit them into a wider category.

I’ll tell you why that is. That’s… again, it’s a theoretical statement but it works out, works out very nicely. And mostly it works out in processing. You never get an absolute anything in processing. You don’t get absolute reductions, complete states, and so on. Why? This universe and most universes favor a gradient scale and it’s a gradient scale of data or space or action or objects. It’s always a gradient scale.

Logic one is knowledge as a whole group. There are lists of these around, in these various books. Knowledge as a whole group or subdivision of a group of data or speculations or conclusions on data or methods of gaining data. That pins knowledge down as data. And that’s true for homo sapiens. And that is true for the type of logic homo sapiens uses.

That’s logic seven: gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data. It’s worse than that. It’s… it’s even worse than that. The universe is conducted on a gradient scale and the reason the gradient scale is so very very interesting here and why it works so very well in creative processing, is because it was a gradient scale of agreement that brought the person here. And it was a gradient scale that made the universe. A gradient scale of agreement – if you agree to a little bit you can agree to a lot. If you don’t agree to a tiny little bit you can’t agree to anything. That tells you something in argumentation.

That does not happen to be the highest level of knowledge. The highest level of knowledge is the potential of – it’s an action definition – the potential of knowing how to know. And that consists of simply the potential of knowing how to know. I’m sorry, but that’s all there is to it. And how do you know? Well, in order to know how to know you have to be free to postulate knowledge. And the freedom to postulate knowledge creates the data which then arranges itself as bodies of knowledge. So, you want to know what your highest echelon of knowledge possibly could be, it would probably be complete freedom to make the postulate to form any… any datum or group of data without even making the postulate to do so.

When you are arguing with somebody and they’re yak yaking around, get something; a lot of people do this, you’ll hear this being done all the time but it’s not done adroitly. You want to be very smooth and completely deadly in an argument, get them to agree so lightly that they agree without friction and then hold that tone level as the agreements progress. That’s deadly. Because the guy will follow more or less right straight through and arrive at your tone band.

And that, that would be knowing how to know, so logic… logic one should be rewritten: Knowing how to know is the definition of the highest level of knowingness. And that the level of knowingness is the freedom to state a postulate which then can become knowledge. Now that’s very simple.

He’ll arrive at your tone band level with an agreement on which there’s no stress and no strain. You’re not fighting then to get an agreement. That is the wrong way to get an agreement. The agreement just sort of slides in gradually and if any agreement slides in gradually it can wind up with something as, evidently, as big and as solid and as real as the MEST universe.

Logic two, a body of knowledge is a body of data aligned or unaligned or methods of gaining data. Well, that’s… that’s interesting too. That just simply says it’s a… a body of knowledge could consist of one postulate or two postulates. And that’s all. And that would be a body of knowledge and if they were stated from… for this universe, they have to be two. And they were stated… they have to be two to be a unit. I’ll explain that a little later. Uh… but, then… then a body of data could be any two data to make a com… a very complete workable body of knowledge.

Agreement itself… when we knew more about agreements, I said in 1950, we’ll be able to crack cases faster and do more in processing than we’ve… ever before been done. Yes, and that’s so true because reality was apparently an agreement. It was so obviously an agreement that we couldn’t call anything real unless we’d agreed to it. And again, there was not an absolute agreement. But it wasn’t required as an absolute agreement.

Now, let… let’s have a whole body of knowledge. Now let’s think one up, let’s think real hard for earth here. Let’s postulate good and evil. Now let’s postulate from good and evil enough other data to make a full body of knowledge which would be very satisfying. Let’s think in a nice wide curve here. We say good and evil. That can lead in two directions.

The fellow walks in the room, he sees… he sees a… a… a big tiger. The tiger’s standing over there on the top rim of the venetian blind. The tiger’s twelve feet long and the venetian blind is only about three feet, uh… three… two uh… and he walks in and says, „There’s a twelve-foot tiger standing on top of the venetian blind and I wonder that you people aren’t frightened to death.“

That can lead to God and the devil, complete bodies of knowledge. But those are sub-bodies of knowledge to the body good and evil. Now on the other side of it – justice and injustice – and what do we get? We get the church and the state – that’s immediately descending from the postulate that two things can exist called good and evil. Now we say what is good? We could be Aristotelian and say: Good is something which isn’t evil, and what is evil? Evil is something which is not good.

And this tiger’s completely real to him and he is so rough that uh… rough in the wits, that he doesn’t know how to put this tiger over on you. He merely says it’s there, and that’s all there is to that. And you will all say, „Well, there is no tiger there.“

Now we can have a universe in which all things good were purple and all things bad were magenta. So that people would get snarled up between the two when they were a little color-blind and that would cause randomity.

Now if he did this he might get away with that here. He… he’d get a laugh and a nice mock-up but uh… if we went down to the Kiwanis Club… if he went down to the Kiwanis Club and he walked in and he said, „You should be afraid of that tiger that’s up there on that venetian blind, because he’s liable to jump on you.“ And they’d say, „Well that’s all right, now take it quiet, oh yeah, that’s good and that’s good. Have a drink of coffee, sit down for a moment. Let’s talk it over.“ Talk it over? Get the cops!

In this universe we have more or less conceived that good is white and black is evil. So we get the black and white and good and evil and we really get the opening of aesthetics. Now we’ve got church, state and the arts, proceeding from one set of postulates.

And naturally select out of that environment a fellow who insisted on seeing tigers on the top of venetian blinds. The sole test of sanity administered by a psychiatrist, and wouldn’t you know it, the sole test is „Is he in agreement with the MEST universe? Well, if he’s in agreement with the MEST universe, why, it’s all right.“

See, that becomes a body of knowledge. Now we’ll just… we’ll just put bric-a-brac on these things. And hang all sorts of bric-a-brac in various directions. We’ll put all the speculations of Martin Luther and uh… confront these with the speculations of Sigmund Freud. And uh… we’ll mess that up with Bismarck’s attitudes and throw in the writings of Machiavelli, sort them very nicely into one big bin of scrambled facts and you have the humanities.

Might be in apathy; we can put him there if he isn’t, but uh… is he in thorough agreement? All right, he is. Then he is sane. The guy’s strictly a fruitcake. All right, where do we get this… this thing about agreement?

Uh… first we have then this… that’s a body of knowledge. But don’t, in Scientology now at this time, confuse the potentiality to make a postulate with data. Because the two are not related. The two can be connected, but just because one has the potentiality of making a postulate which then can become a body of knowledge does not mean that one has to make a postulate.

It’s a gradient scale of agreement. You might start it out this way. You’d say at the beginning of the track, there you were. And maybe you decided that you’d like a universe. Well, now something had to happen – you had to agree to something before you could have a universe or you and a couple of guys or something of the sort… And you’ve decided to fix this stuff up and so on. A… and something had to happen before you did that.

He might never make the postulate but this doesn’t. take away from him the right to make a postulate. So a body of knowledge, we might have… this fellow might have a… a whole great big pile of whuf – a huge pile of whuf and there it is. And never do a single thing about it. He’s got it. Other people could come along and say, „Well, why don’t you whuficate that stuff.“ But it wouldn’t matter a darn whether he did or not. He’s… he’s got the whuf.

You had to have something occur, either initiate natively or have it initiated upon you, that it was desirable to obtain something called a universe. And have some action and so forth and uh… so on. And uh… uh… you should notice I have never defined the word „universe.“ Because if I defined the word universe as such you would say, „Uh-huh, that means parallels to the MEST universe,“ and universes are very much not necessarily parallels to the MEST universe at all. Some of them don’t even have action in them. Uh… they have something else. It’s very interesting.

Now that is a much lower echelon than not having anything. Not having anything is about as high as you can get. You know the old Chinese legend that the uh… the uh… head of a Chinese state or the emperor or his chamberlain or somebody had a daughter and the daughter is very, very ill and the doctors all got around – they were members of the American medical Association. They all got around and they said, „Well, you’ll have to cover them with the shirt of a happy man, and wh… that is our equivalent of penicillin. We’ve made a postulate that that exists and uh… have to find the shirt of a perfectly happy man and put that upon her and your daughter will then be well.“

Now, when these fellows set this up, whatever they set up, they had to agree that – amongst themselves at least – that it was desirable to have this thing. And then they got to agreeing about a bunch of other things so that they could get some sort of a uh… group effort on the thing or even to agree on something.

And so the chamberlain and the king called in all these couriers and messengers, sent them north, east, south and west, and they all rode and rode and rode and batches of them started coming back all footsore and weary and… and with their horses caved in and they hadn’t been able to find a happy man and she was just about to expire and… and the last… the last doctor was being hanged and in came the last messenger and he looked at the king or the chamberlain or whoever it was and he says, „I did find a happy man,“ and very eagerly because the last breaths were just coming out of the girl by that time.

One side would say this is desirable and the other side say this is undesirable, and they’d have a game. You see, it took this sort of thing.

The King says, „Well, give me…“ and the fellow said, „He didn’t have a shirt.“ So you see, there is… there’s a large difference though between… you see the reason man’s, by the way, never been able to resolve that little lesson, the reason he’s never been able to resolve it, is because he considered himself potentially what he was, was something that didn’t have to have, didn’t have to want, and so he knew very well that the way to be perfectly happy was to have nothing – no objects, which didn’t give you any time. And you could sit down on a pink cloud and there you were. And you could just be serene. You could be serene for just ages and ages and ages. So what do we have? We have a fellow down tone scale who is in the situation of having to want. He is running a body. He has responsibilities added up in his society which consist of families, and employers, and pieces of MEST in general, other pieces of MEST and he’s got to work, in other words, in order to keep a supply line going because he’s in a time track because he’s got objects already running.

You have to agree, by the way, to disagree. That sounds like uh… one of those circular statements but uh… unless you and your arguing opponent are thoroughly agreed upon something, you can never fight.

And now we tell that fellow, now we try to tell him this philosophy: well, the happy man is the fellow who has nothing. Boy, he sure knows you’re wrong. He knows he’d only really be happy if he had this twenty-eight room house and nineteen hot and cold running servants and he… he’d only be really happy if he had these things.

And one of the best ways to pull the bottom out of an argument in which you find yourself engaged is suddenly find that you are sweepingly in agreement. Only make him discover that he is sweepingly in agreement with you. Now, when these… these fellows, this universe… now a lot of things could have happened. The MEST universe simply could have overlapped, bing. The universe built in this direction and then the one day, it had a lot of agreements native to it which were native to the MEST universe.

And yet, yet, uh… if he gets those things he just reduces himself that much further to MEST. So he’s on a cycle which is very difficult to interrupt for him without knowing how to know. If he doesn’t know how to know, he cannot interrupt the cycle of having to want. Because having to want procures and procurement has to be selective between procuring what is desirable and not procuring what is not desirable.

Or the MEST universe says somebody who has… came in there and here was a bridge sort of built over of agreement. And the next thing you know, the fellow’d agreed that something was terribly desirable or in some cases there was just a sudden big boom.

And one begins to make this selection back and forth this way and that, and he gets to have more that he doesn’t want and want more that he doesn’t have and his confusion on this line gets to be such finally that he is MEST and that’s the bottom of the actual cycle, to be an object.

And their universe caved in, which is a very startling thing to have happen. Somebody could pick up its wave length, its chain of agreements, find out what its laws were and blow it up. There’s nothing to that.

So the object of that sort of thing is to be an object. Well, you try to tell him about… about this thing – the way to have is to be happy is to not to Have and that sort of thing; he knows you’re nutty. Now a Hindu has a terrifically workable lot of data lurking in the midst of a terrific lot of very treacherous data.

Now that was normal and usual. Practically everyone here can get a lot of nice big bops on an E-Meter. And it’s a peculiar kind of bops. Somebody was just mentioning it to me. Uh… it’s… it’s a big theta bop; little theta bops about so little wobble uh… back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, but a theta bop which insists on running ten or twenty points on the scale wide, it just jumps way back about maybe a third of the dial back and forth or half of the dial back and forth, something like that, that’s a bop on the loss of and still trying to hold on to the home universe.

And so you get a rustic, a fakir, or a yogi low level sitting on a bed of spikes to discipline the body and telling himself, „I am training myself not to have and by this I shall ascend to and rise to the highest of controls and nirvanas.“ And there he sits with a body.

See all that kind of a bop is trying to hold on to? Still trying to hold on to that. And you’ll run this as an explosion sometime or sometimes you’ll run it as a persuasion, but always you will run it as something that shouldn’t have happened.

Now you can talk about playing tricks on a fellow – he’s playing tricks on himself; he… he’s got something that has to want continually and here he sits with something that does and he says at the same time, „I will be only… I will only be happy if I do not have and therefore I must deny everything.“ And so he gets where? He gets on a maybe. And it’s from that datum it can be said that the very confusing quality of Indian practices arise.

That’s regretted and the poor fellow’s still staying with it. All right, that bridge, then, led over into the MEST universe and the fellow suddenly found himself agreeing that this was a flock of space which had its origin at point unknown and he is part of that organization now, and he has volunteered. And the next thing you know, you’ll find out he has agreed. How is all this done? It’s done by hypnosis; it’s done in various other ways.

He knows by instinct that he’d be happiest if he didn’t have, and he’s still holding on to something because he doesn’t know how to get rid of it completely. He’s holding on to something that has to want. And so he’s on a maybe. And he gets: „Is God there? Isn’t God there? Am I in communication with Him? Am I not in communication? What things are around me? Is it true or is it false or what is or what isn’t?“ and on this big maybe he rides himself right on in. It’s no joke; I’ve known a lot of those boys.

Hypnosis is just a sudden agreement. And uh… it’s done in various ways and then he comes down this whole long scale of agreement and things get more and more in agreement and they are probably more and more actually to his personal discredit and uh… antipathetic to his best beingness, habit he’s still going down the line, and goes down the line further, and further, end further, and further.

Logic three: any knowledge that can be sensed, measured, experienced by any entity is capable of influencing that entity. Too true. Just too true. This is, by the way, an interesting logic in that… in that it is aimed right straight at a fellow by the name of uh… I think it’s Kant. Uh… I guess it’s an impossible name like that… and with a name like that you’d sure expect that he wouldn’t be able to. And he sure couldn’t.

He’s gotten into the game called the MEST universe which is set up to need a lot of recruits. And he gets all these recruits. Now the essence of untangling the MEST universe was nothing very special, except this: it was the… it was the uh… difficulties of discovering what had been agreed to from a point in the universe where that agreement was a reality and where the rules had been hidden.

Now that’s our friend Kant and that’s… all knowledge that is worth having will be found to be beyond the bounds of human experience. So you better quit right here at this barricade, fellow, because us scholastics have got it all nailed down. We got a machine gun and barbed wire across here and anything that’s worth having is over here and this is the last outpost toward it, and if you try and pass it we’re going to fix your crock.

There’s no anatomy of this agreement really, was there, at all? See, now you had to look around and find out everything had been agreed to in the universe and then you could trace back and then you could actually pull somebody out of the universe. That’s about all you could do about it or you could turn around and… and set it up so somebody else who wanted it could actually turn around and master the universe.

For a hundred and sixty-two years that philosophy pervaded Western philosophy and monitored it to such a degree that today you go out in Podunk and down on Ray Street and ask people offhand; you say, „Now what, what would you think of somebody who would dare to investigate the actual beingness and soul of man?“

In order to do anything about this, you had to know what this anatomy was. Well, it’s the anatomy of agreement and that anatomy of agreement is always a gradient scale.

„Oh, you mustn’t do that. No, that’d be very, very bad, because if you found out there’d be no more universes or something.“ Now, that’s the… that is the… I think that’s called transcendental logic or realism or something; it’s wonderful stuff.

You can test this agreement with a hypnotized subject very easily. Now the reason why it’s… it’s a… it’s an interesting thing for you to study in Scientology is this: you’ve got uh… you… you’re on a level of agreement on a certain series of data but what is the data? The data is on a level of agreement of how we disagree with the MEST universe. How can you turn it backwards?

Any datum worth having, then, is beyond man’s power to know. And that is sure enough sheer by the bucketful class A quality hogwash. It’s not true, it never has been true because it states that in this universe a one-way flow can exist. It says you can never backlash up a communication line and that’s sure wrong. There isn’t a piece of wire in any electronics laboratory nor a piece of MEST anywhere in any planet, not a piece of space manufactured anywhere in this universe which will not conduct both ways.

We’re in agreement on an anatomy of agreement so that the anatomy of agreement can be reversed or handled in any other fashion. Or even by the way that you can continue on and de pen the agreement in same quarters. I can show you ways and means of getting somebody to agree even much better with that MEST universe.

Now that engineers can figure them and figure them, and rig them and rig them and rig them but they still won’t get one that will put up one hundred percent butterfly valves along the whole length of it. If you pour juice in that way, there can juice go back that way again. That’s the wrong way to think about it, that there can be a one-way flow.

I haven’t left the data out because I haven’t talked to any psychiatrist for a long time. But uh… the data is… is… is quite… quite ordinary, uh… hypnotists, uh… you get uh… you go around and prove the reality to them. You… you coax them into facing reality, uh… narcosynthesis, electric shock, all of these things are methods of getting somebody to agree with the MEST universe.

They’d have you think that this… and we are the puppets of some sort of a monitoring agency which could command us and affect us and influence us and yet we would never be able to contact nor experience the puppet master. Well, to hell with the puppet master.

And uh… I’ve been meaning to tell psychiatry about this because I’m sure they haven’t thought of using any of these things, but these are practically the only methods of really reducing somebody by getting him to agree. And the hypnosis, narcosynthesis, I want you to take a list of this hypnosis, electric shock, uh… dope, uh… the uh… phenobarbital, uh… there are other methods: telling a person how tired they are and they have to have a rest, uh… uh… telling people that they’d better… better look to their souls and so forth, these are all methods – these are all methods which psychiatry ought to have because I know they’d be completely original to psychiatry.

That is the philosophy. I hope no man ever falls into that trap because it blocked human thought and human progress. Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject. Would you believe it that even at this moment, this subject has been in existence for… more or less for two and a half years, and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now that’s incredible; if you had a Doctor of Philosophy you would expect a Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize.

They deepen one’s agreement with the MEST universe. You just tell these people to face reality now. Now I’ll tell you what’s wrong with you, you just have not faced reality. Now you must face the reality of your problem.

And a person… the professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy. No sir, that’s how you keep a society static.

The day you face the reality of this problem you will then be able – then you will be able at last to be better off. And this fellow goes into apathy and he goes further and further and further. And of course, he goes more and more under control and I am sure that the fee has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

This society… this society actually was penalized to an enormous degree by that block on the philosophic line. It’s much more intimate to thee and me than you would suppose, because in the field of science they long since learned that in the natural study of use of natural law and the exactness of the agreements which had been made, that an enormous number of effects could be produced.

You can get a much better fee – I tell you as auditors quite frankly – it… it’s much easier to get a great deal of money out of somebody who’s on a down spiral into becoming MEST that it is to get money out of somebody who is going on an up spiral toward becoming theta.

And since Immanuel Kant, assembly line rifles, automobiles, assembly line machine guns, rapid-firing naval cannon, steel ships, aeroplanes, atom bombs and H-bombs have been invented without what happening in philosophy? Just… just a dead blank. Now if somebody had been actually with some… some sensitivity that we shouldn’t really override the humanities just because we have a clear road here…

Just give you that word of warning. They… they’ve been working themselves out… they’ve been working themselves out of… of uh… preclears uh… in various parts of the world uh… too rapidly. They… they clean up a practice. Fellow takes a couple of weeks and all of a sudden he looks around and he doesn’t have any patients any more and of course the truth of the matter is, he… he then starts getting a flood of patients sooner or later.

There ought to be some other road in the field of humanities there. There ought to be some parallel track. We haven’t got a society that knows anything about these things.

But he’s cleaning up the rate of one normal psychoanalytic practice every fortnight, and… and this is a rate of speed which has exceeded, of course, exceeded the desirable feed-in of cannon fodder. So go very cautious about this, I mean, slow down, hold motion, and you will be able to get a lot of MEST.

Well, what are we doing? We got atom bombs around here and there’s no danger with the control of an atom bomb. All you’ve got to do is push a button and there’s no danger about it. If you don’t push the button it won’t explode, and if you do push the button it will explode; the control of the atom bomb is an assured fact. It’s utterly certain that if you push a button of an atom bomb it’s going to blow. So you… there’s no danger or trouble with control of nuclear fission.

Now, now the gradient scale of agreement is mirrored, OF COURSE, in the gradient scales which you find in existence all through matter. Just look at matter. Look at liquids, solids, gases and right there uh… you have gases, liquids, solids. It’s a gradient scale. That’s interesting, isn’t it?

The boys have done a very good job, but how do you control the human being who pushes the button? And so we get Uncle Joe, uh… Uncle Joe and other characters around that may rush around, and they think the hottest way to do this to to make a… a secret society out of atomic science, as their first answer.

You have flows first of one kind or another. And then there’s a little bridge in there; you’ve got a ridge sort of a situation, a couple of other things and… it’s very interesting, that formative state. Uh… examine that and you’ll find out that they go into gases and then ‘the gases go on a gradient scale and they’re heavier and heavier gases. And then all of a sudden you’ve got liquids. And uh… that goes into a gradient scale of liquids and they’re soupier and soupier liquids, and then you’ve got solids. And you go on down the line of solids and then you get to a solid that’s what? You get the whole tone scale repeated again between – uh… you get a tone scale repeat, by the way, from uh… enthusiasm, which is a gas. This is of a much… much lower harmonic than… than 4.0, but you get enthusiasm as a gas down to a conservative gas, sort of inert and so on. And uh… it’s conservative, then a real inert gas would be just bored. And you go down below that and you start to get into the antagonistic gases and then you get into those that are… that are good and angry and you’re right into between 2.0 and 1.5, you’re in a liquid band really. Now you go on down from there, you’re in solids, and you go on down the band of solids little by little by little and you would get down to what? One point zero; one point zero is a dispersal.

Now we’ve got to have a sort of an atomic police and none of this data can get out in any way, shape or form; and we’ve got to throw the barricades down, not just on trade but on the free knowledge of science which should circulate amongst all lands and which itself is the best guarantee of peace.

Now we go from 1.0 on south from that. A dispersal, plutonium. Plutonium is so solid and it is so determined to be scarce – at that level you see, MEST has got to be scarce. You’ll find the haves. There’s a harmonic scale of have on the metals, on the elements. It’s ever so often you’ll find the elements as they Go down, very-even numbered, I mean as they go down, they’re very nice and regular, not even-numbered, very nice and regular.

So not only do we produce the ultimate weapon but we produce at the same time a new barricade. Science is out of circulation with science today. And it’s going further and further out. Now that’s very interesting. An imbalance like that has been happening almost by the square. It is happening with a rush. We’re seeing the fruition of all of that misconcept at this time.

They go right on down, have me, have me, have me. See the metals go uh… liquids and so on, they say have not and then have me and then don’t have me and have me and don’t have me and have me. It… it’s sort of divided up into that idiotic scale. You can take the periodic chart and look it up and add that up – a little mental exercise for you. Uh… anyway – not even vaguely important at this time – it might help the field of metallurgy but that’s… to the dickens with that.

Actually, the only real danger an atom bomb is as far as thee and me are concerned is simply that somebody might bust loose with one of the doggone things and cost us some time, that’s all. We’ve got a spielplatz here called Earth and… and uh… uh… it’s… it’s… we need it for a short time and they keep trying to mess up the playing field.

Uh… gold for instance is a have me. And uh… plutonium is so scarce at such a terrific don’t – it’s a… all mixed up. It’s a don’t have me and a have me. And it’s a wonderful maybe and it gets right down there and it’s so scarce and it’s so determined but it doesn’t know what it’s doing, that it is a dispersal, and you start putting any plutonium together and it goes Kapoom! – won’t hold together – and that’s the way a preclear is.

I’m trying to do something about it, but not… not a bad sad hope either.

You put him together at a certain level and boy does he disperse like mad. So you see there’s an echo in the material universe itself. And in each one of these substances there’s no such thing as an absolute purity or an absolute state of it. Or anything else absolute – I mean, that’s just typical of this universe that it follows down.

All right, that knowledge which cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by any entity or type of entity cannot influence that entity or type of entity.

Now let’s look at the chart of the gradient scale of survive and don’t survive and let’s take a look first at uh… the corollary: any datum has only relative truth and corollary: truth is relative to environments, experience, and truth. And we look at that. Let’s go down from there and say: in logic eight, a datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude. And a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated, oh, it’s quite important. Because the form, the network, with which you are operating in creative processing and which is your main high road to a good thorough theta clear…

If nobody to date has been able to actually spot with a meter the existence of commands from a Supreme Being… you see, he’s got no reason or right to keep insisting that people receive commands from a Supreme Being. He has no reality on it. He… he couldn’t… he couldn’t get a good agreement on this except on a stampede basis. It cannot be scientifically established the geographical location of a fellow by the no… name of the Supreme Being, MEST universe. That can’t be established.

A cleared theta clear, this is the high road to it. It’s a gradient scale and it would run datum of comparable magnitude. Everything is… is… is to be compared in this universe by a datum of comparable magnitude.

A lot of fellows been trying that. This does not say that there aren’t such things as gods and makers of gods. But it does say that this cardboard thing-a-ma-bob that they sell by painting signs on the rocks probably isn’t sending out anything for us to experience at all.

All right. Uh… let’s take the first datum of comparable magnitude which was attained in this. And let’s take uh… survival and uh… succumb. Two data of comparable magnitude. Now there… there we have a dichotomy which is right up there. One can be evaluated to some slight degree by the other and you can extrapolate from these experience. And you can take a terrific amount of experience out of these data.

Why? We can’t measure it. That’s a heck of an arbitrary scale, isn’t it? Well, the dickens it is. We’ve been able to measure everything else. In absence of that we’ve been driven to this incredible length. In absence of trying to find a Supreme being for this universe, why we’ve been driven to the incredible length of having to discover that uh… uh… probably the mostest god you’ll ever know is you in this universe and uh… for lack of a… lack of a nice big fellow who anthromorphically sits on a throne and uh… has a greed for adulation which would be found disgusting in any mortal (I’m quoting the Greeks now. The sources of Christianity, Plato, the great pagan, he’s their sole reason for authority). Anyway, didn’t you know that, that Christianity is based upon the writings of Plato, and the Catholic Church at all times when challenged about its doctrines has uniformly referred to the authority called Plato? You understand I’m not… not in any way, sense or form against the Church. I think the Church is a good organization. But we got a better one now.

Well now, is survive an absolute scale? No, it sure isn’t and in the first book we have a graph here, it looks something like this. We had a track of this, a track this way and so on. And this was plotted against time, plotted against objects, and this was plotted against uh… immortality and there was a dynamic survive here and that showed that… that arrow over there, survive, showed the potential of survival.

Now there’s something else that goes with that which I ought to say to an auditor. He’s going to discover more half-known thing-a-ma-bobs and what-nots in preclears with this stuff than he cares to count up.

How long would this individual survive and so we… we have that there as a… an extremely valuable breakdown as far as our thinking and processing was concerned; now you could break that one down, you could break that thing down into eight dynamics. That was how many things were surviving when any individual was surviving in this universe.

If he had one of these Chinese things that does addition in incredible numbers – I think it’s above an ENIAC in the number of figures it will carry or something – he would not be able to count off in a career of one year of auditing and Dianetics all the screwball things that he will run into and it’s a very, very good thing, a very good thing, to go along the line of what you actually know as a certainty and to lay off in receiving communication from your preclear and in trying to establish this, that and the other thing about the preclear, what you cannot discover as a certainty.

You had him paying attention to all eight dynamics. Now, you have this plotted against time and we got our tone scale and you’ll find the first tone scale in the first book. It just isn’t numbered. It even tells you it’s got a gradient scale, it’s got geometric progression, all sorts of things.

The E-Meter is a fair certainty of establishment. When your preclear starts to tell you that he is immediately in connection with the upper, higher key of the left-hand side of Betelgeuse, when he tells you this and says that he has positive information that you are about to be wiped out at thirteen-thirty o’clock, you say, „Okay, now let’s get a mock-up of…“

But anyhow, then let’s look this over. Down here at the bottom here was succumb. And this thing was all plotted out against time and it showed that the impulse of the organism, the life organism in particular, was an effort to persist as long as possible in a living state.

I told you when the class began about that thing about the Prince of Darkness. That’s routine. Sure, sure, there’s all types of odds and ends of communications that are coming through and being taped onto your preclear. But, you’re underestimating the power of thee, you’re just completely underestimating it. Nothing can tamper with you unless you agree to permit it to. And there is no stronger law in this universe really than that, as far as protection is concerned.

In as good a state as possible and as long as possible for all eight dynamics and that was survival. We had the opposite to it was the impulse to succumb. Well, now what was right and what was wrong? A little bit later got to figuring out right and wrong, and I got this: That… that which led to the maximal survival for the maximal number of dynamics could be considered to be right. And that which was minimal survival for the minimal number for the maximal number of dynamics, whichever way you want to look at it, uh… was wrong.

If you start saying this is destructive it can only then become so. Now, people can be hit with force because they have agreed that force is destructive and only then can force hit them. That person who has not agreed upon the destructivity of force would theoretically be untouchable by it.

And you could adjudicate then right and wrong. You could actually sit down and figure out and get a good working frame of reference then as to what was right and wrong and how did it compare?

We tell this story. I ran this out of a preclear one time. Didn’t run it out of a preclear, preclear told me about running it.

Well, it compared well enough so that a bar association of one state in this union reconvened their rules of evidence… committee on the rules of evidence, and started to work. The reports are not in on that yet, but they are working over the rules of evidence because they’ve obviously got to be changed.

Way back on the first area of track… there are three areas to these tracks, you know, for each person. There is thetan plus thetan, there is thetan versus bodies. And then there’s bodies versus bodies. And you can divide the track roughly into those sections. The earliest portion of it is thetan versus thetan, the middle portion of it is thetan versus bodies and the latter portion of it is, of course, bodies versus bodies.

We had a working… working material on right and wrong. Well, what’s right and wrong? Right and wrong would be yes and no. Now, some of your engineers will tell you that they’re working on three-valued logic. They aren’t but Boolean algebra depends on yes greater than no and no greater than yes. It’s just a two-value that way; in other words, it’s plotting yes, no and maybe. And uh… uh… one of your big switchboards, whenever you pick up a phone down here, is running a switchboard which operates on Boolean algebra.

Now that means that if you’re looking for basic-basic on DEDs and DEDEXs and so on, you’re going to find them rather uniformly on thetan versus thetan, not thetan versus bodies.

Last time I looked they were… yes, greater than no, no greater than yes, hunt hunt hunt hunt hunt, well, the yes on this is greater than no, plug. Hunt hunt hunt hunt hunt, well, the no is greater than yes, plug. Hunt hunt hunt hunt hunt, no greater than yes, plug. And uh… some engineers that work on that, by the way, practically work it in their sleep after a while.

Although, blanketing is a very easy place to go to. You have to know that on mock-ups by the way. It’s a lot more beneficial to take a couple of lighted electric light bulbs and turn them on and off and have the preclear smashing them together and breaking them and doing that sort of thing than it is to have the preclear doing the things with spots of lights on the body.

Boolean algebra, it works things out yes greater than no, no greater than yes. Well, they’re… they’re not really working on two or even three-valued logic, although many of them will tell you, „I’m working on three-valued logic.“ Yes, maybe and no. They’re not.

Well anyway, way back on the track… he is sitting there doing nothing and life was interesting to him and very pleasant and a bunch of thetans came around, about a hundred thetans, and said, „Do you know that you can’t fight a hundred thetans?“

I had a very interesting argument with one of the chaps who builds some of the more interesting electronic brains, a friend of mine. One… one afternoon we had a good time. We went down, and I finally managed to drive home and pound down this datum that there was actually not three-valued logic which he claimed he was using, but there was actually twelve-valued logic.

„Aw go on, I’m not interested in fighting a hundred thetans, go on your way.“ And they tried to flip energy at him and of course he wouldn’t tune up to the energy; he didn’t think it was dangerous – it was just going right on by him and he wasn’t paying any attention to it. And they said, „Well, how do you know you can’t fight a hundred thetans? Why don’t you try to… you haven’t convinced us that you can’t fight a hundred thetans.“ Well, this got him kind of sore, which is the trick.

And twelve-valued logic consisted of the yes greater than no is greater than yeses and so on and the modifications thereof. There was maybe and there was more yes than no maybes, and rare no than yes maybes and those… there was nothing was less maybe and more maybe. And we had a good argument about it and he finally bought this and so forth and then I of course did the horrible thing of demonstrating to him that it was an infinity-valued logic and he’d bought a pig in a poke.

And uh… they got him to turn on so he would start blocking energy and then about a hundred thetans started dive bombing him with force beams and so forth, and started running around and around and he’s very successful at the first part of the battle; he’s knocking them left and right and then all of a sudden why of course he’s not. So he goes running around after that telling all the thetans he’d run into and so forth, „Do you know that you can’t fight a hundred thetans?“

We’ll call this an infinity of lines here. And we’ll call this thing here in the middle maybe. Now all that means is neither no nor yes. So that’s the definition of maybe… neither no nor yes. And the only time a problem is in abeyance is when you can’t get a greater factor on weight on the yes or the no.

Well, it’s an incredible thing now there that… that gives you an example. Let’s say you’re sitting there and your preclear says, „You know ah anama and I da da and I was da da and these Venusian psychiatrists and so on and it’s just going to happen to you any minute and uh… so on,“ or „We should get into contact with this,“ so on. Why, give me then the modern equivalent of „Go over it again“: „Let’s get another mock-up on this now,“ because uh… if you say, „They are? What? By golly, you know, maybe you can’t fight a hundred thetans; I’ll have to find out“ – because these characters don’t have a MEST entrance point immediately handy.

I should have done it, I shouldn’t have done it. What do you find in a fellow who’s worried about it? Worried means he is unable to unbalance the balance between yes and no which puts him on a maybe. The anatomy of maybes as you heard in technique 88 was never more valid than it is right now. The anatomy of the maybe – how do you resolve indecisions.

Just remember that, they don’t have a MEST entrance point. So deal in certainties. Deal in certainties. Know only that you know and go on from there. And when you know that you know, why operate. Work on that data. That also tells you that you should separate data out into various bins.

What is an indecision? How do engrams come into suspension. MEST itself is a flock of indecision. It’s a big chaotic confusion and you have to pour some positive and negative MEST together to get a stable MEST. You have to get it stable – if you want it stable you’ve actually got to hang it in the maybe, otherwise it will flow off and go in some other direction.

You take these bins and… and you… you can have, say you have several bins, and it’d be a gradient scale. You say, „All right, and we partially know about this and we know a little more about that and we don’t know anything about this over here on an evaluation of data; we haven’t got anything to measure this up to, but this we can correlate and coordinate and work with pretty well, now what part of it as we’re working is the most valuable to us?“

On a ship for instance they have a terrible time with this. There… there’s so many, so many elements that say more yes than no and so many elements that say more no than yes that the whole bottom of the boiler or the boiler tubes or the propellers or even the steel itself in the hulls is liable to flow right away into the water. And you call this electrolysis.

It is always that portion of it of which you were the most certain. Now that is a conservative way of looking at things in one way, at one… in one direction it’s a conservative method of looking at something but actually it isn’t. I consistently have done this trick in investigation. I’ve taken all the maybes and thrown them out the window and hung onto a few certainties.

The potentials are slightly different in the MEST they’re using and they can’t get a decent balance on it and they have an awful time with it.

And then with those few certainties looked for some more certainties and then evaluated again and thrown out any less certain thing that was there and I’ve gone straight on through in that wise. That meant that you couldn’t work with MEST universe what is laughingly called data – and so this work is not a product of MEST universe data, but it’s an investigation of the track of the MEST universe. All right, an investigation of its track alone would be the same in the investigations as it would be with the auditor.

I saw a ship one time that had just eaten up her third set of boiler tubes in a month. They couldn’t get the… they couldn’t get the positive – negative terminals. This is one of the big problems of marine engineering, by the way.

The investigation is a parallel to an investigation that’s being carried on with an auditor, and every preclear is an adventure. They all have their differences, some of them are wilder than others, some of them more interesting than others. But in every one of them you are examining, first, a member of a universe in which you are also an inhabitant and, primarily, you are looking at a universe.

If you were able to go in and solve this just bop, you would be worth your weight in, I don’t know, you couldn’t be worth your weight in theta, you already got that. Well, it would be a valuable contribution.

And that universe itself might be very strangely constructed. You’re not even vaguely interested in how that universe is really constructed, only insofar as how that structure has been knocked to pieces and its functions disrupted by an agreement level of which you have a very adequate track.

All right, now again here, survive then would be yes. Toward good for the dynamics. Survive and that would be good. And that would go out here toward infinity. A theoretical infinity of good.

So deal with certainties, not with uncertainties. Be sure that you’re sure and operate. That doesn’t mean that you have to have 100% absolute certainty in order to operate, just take the one that comes closest to it in your estimation and work with it. If you knew eight techniques, let’s say, and you were darn certain of technique two, you would do much better to take this technique two and operate with it than you would be to try to operate with all eight.

Maximum number of dynamics – now you could draw one of these darn things for every single dynamic, you could draw one for the first dynamic, and the second dynamic, for the third dynamic, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth dynamic. You could draw one for each one or you can draw this as just a composite of this arrow which was in the first book – the impulses toward survival.

You know, I ran into a fellow one time who was learning how to play the piccolo. And he was playing piccolo for the band. And he was just learning how to play this piccolo and I kept hearing this excruciating noise. It would go on all evening. So I found this fellow who was making this noise, and he was making this noise with his piccolo and what was he doing? All evening long he would hold one note until he was absolutely sure of that note. And he was sooner or later then going to be absolutely sure of every note on that piccolo. And he got to be a pretty good piccolo player. That’s kind of cautious!

And it would be: value of assistance toward survival, would walk over here toward good. And we will call that, just for the heck of it, yes.

A lot of the difference between speeds in people is that some people have more certainties than others. Two people can get to the same goal really at different times – one simply holds onto his certainties and examines them longer than another.

All right, it’d walk over here toward good and an infinity of good would be the theoretical goal, but absolutes are unobtainable, so there couldn’t be an infinity of good. Something would happen if you had an infinity of good, probably the whole universe’d – it wouldn’t necessarily blow up but it would probably be just… just stopped.

Now a person who’s trying to succumb will take the most uncertain data he has and use that. He’ll use that for all of his thinking processes and everything else. When he gets so far down the tone scale anything that has got an uncertainty principle to it, he’ll use. He won’t use any certainties.

Because there’d be no differences of potentials anywhere along the line. Now let’s look over to the other side, here, and say this is no. And we get here, succumb. And we get with it uh… evil. So we’ve got that, good and evil, just arbitrary values. We have another word that goes over here, right. Another word that goes over here, wrong.

You as an auditor just reverse the process and you’ll bring him up tone scale. That’s why these people float around with maybes all the time. They’d actually rather have a maybe than a certainty. And you start him going up the tone scale and you’re just finding more and more certainties.

An infinity of evil would cause a complete succumbing of the entire universe, theoretically. Because you have only one… one terminal. Now maybe you’d call this plus, call that minus. You’ve got the same thing, you’ve got… you’ve got orders of experience here. The plus, the minus, yes, no, survive, succumb, good, evil, infinity here, and infinity there, and right and wrong. So plus, yes, survive, good, infinity, and right are datums which interrelate and which evaluate each other. And there’s a gradient scale of each and anytime you find the point for one of those on that gradient scale – you’ll find the rest of them at the same more or less point on that gradient scale.

This… this raving psychotic may be confronting you if you’re unfortunate enough to process psychotics and uh… uh… these techniques work on them. But uh… here… here he… he is… he’s raving around about this and raving around about that, and he appears to be quite certain.

How right is something, how much is it going to assist the survival of something? How wrong is something? How much is it going to make something succumb? How evil is something? Well, it’s as evil as it is wrong and wrong is succumb. And how much of it’s evil? It causes succumb, therefore is uh… uh… complete sexual freedom evil? Now, instead of just going in and reading Plato and other Christian uh… authorities on the thing, let’s look this thing over and uh… we’ll find that uh… that we have an actual way to evaluate this. We have a way to evaluate it here and then we’ve got a way to evaluate that column against this column. Why, what do you know? We’re working out here a system of ethics.

Lord knows he may be apathetic about it or wild enough about it, but if you question him even vaguely about this thing, you… you shake up what little certainty he’s been able to accomplish on this terrific uncertainty in which he’s sitting. He’s not even certain of anything, truth is.

System of ethics, that system of ethics will hold for a lot of universes. But more importantly, for this universe particularly, it holds for logic and that probably holds for most universes too, just the way it is there. Something which is right or it’s wrong, that’s no action, no action at all.

Well, the wrong way to treat him is to challenge what he’s got because he’s really got what’s to him a pretty good level of certainty. But he will go away from any big certainty because he’s headed down scale toward MEST and the mostest you can say about MEST is maybe.

You don’t take any action either. You’ve got to throw something onto this. Now you could actually throw onto a preclear enough new data in order to unbalance his bullpen of maybes. You could theoretically just give him enough data and he would go from that data into a state of decision just by learning more about a situation. But that isn’t too much so.

MEST is plus-negative and in confusion and chaos. And so it’s the big… biggest maybe there is, is MEST. So let’s go up scale with this psycho and let’s find out the least thing of which he can be certain, with confidence and complete certainty, and it will break a maybe.

Now how much of a gradient scale is this gradient scale? Well, that’s quite a gradient scale. There’s an infinity of lines from here to here and another infinity of lines from there to there. And right in here there’s an infinity of lines, and right there there’s an infinity of lines.

And you can just… if you follow that principle, not running engrams or anything else, but just follow that principle as a general operating principle with psychotics, you’ll watch cases breaking with psychotics – bong, bong, bong.

That’s a wonderful number, infinity. Somebody thought it up and it simply means the mostest. It means a never-ending mostestness. And so let’s look this thing over and of course ‘we can say it’s an… I can say very soberly: Now I wanted you to note in particular that there is one half an infinity between here and here.

I haven’t any uh… qualms much about treating them. I hate to advise auditors to treat them for the good reason that psychotics are very hard to re… they’re quite restimulative when you approach them in a body. You can approach them without a body, just take your perceptic band off and just let it go through, don’t put up screens. That just builds up a stop and you get glee of insanity all over it. Horrible stuff.

Now absolutes are unobtainable, now you could theoretically… you have an infinity of evil. You don’t have an infinity of evil. Uh… let’s have… let’s put something in here which is uh… a little more interesting, and let’s have a zero, huh? Well, it’s not a zero, couldn’t be, couldn’t he – and let’s draw a curve from here across to here, like that. Just for the… the heck of it and then let’s put the number 40.0 here, just for the heck of it. And uh… by the way, this number 40.0 had better be just about over here or somebody will get that into a… a spin or something of the sort. And uh… let’s put as an unbalanced uh… maybe of some sort, here uh… but let’s put around here someplace, 20.0, and over here we’ve got a 0.0. Now those are just tone scale arbitraries.

Well, anyway, you take him up scale in certainties. If you have a raving psychotic you can at last say, you can at last say to him, he can recognize a MEST object, or he can recognize you, or he can recognize a window catch. You can just say to him sometime, „Is there anything in this room that is real to you?“

They’re just tone scale arbitraries. Why I thought we didn’t have any action here on… on maybes. No action at all unless you take a… unless you take a no responsibility. A no responsibility for it – we’ve already investigated and 20.0 should be right about there. And that’s about… a lot of action involved in that.

„No.“ Yeah, no.

Or, let’s see, let’s work this out a little bit better. Let’s put 20.0 there. You got a conservatism there, maximum action. All right, now all I’ve done here is make an approximation of the cycle of action. And the cycle of action runs on this line, to some degree. It can be plotted on this gradient scale to some degree, but it is not, again, an absolute plot. So you have this thing which is running here, not as part of the graph, but it’s standing out three-dimensionally from the graph as a cycle of action.

What you’ve done is make him hold on to two new anchor points, and then post something in the room. And he’ll all of a sudden look around and he’ll say, „The light switch… the light switch, yeah, that’s really a light switch.“ Now he can go from there to „That’s a window. That’s a washstand. This is a bed. That’s a floor.“ Don’t think he’s just chattering. This guy is in momentary ecstasy of certainties.

This cycle of action here is a cycle of logic. That’s what we’re plotting. See that? And down here we’ve got something that we call approximate cycle of action. Now why should we put anything like that? Our tone scale actually doesn’t work like that. Or does it?

You’ve managed to direct his attention just enough up level to let him find and locate – what? An object by anchor point coordinates. And you just let him locate himself. And he’ll locate himself; he’ll find his hands, and his legs, and stuff like that. He’ll locate himself. He’ll get himself right back into present time, if you don’t suddenly think you have to get fancy and if you don’t think you have to get more learned that that. Really there’s nothing more learned to know about psychotics.

Your tone scale theoretically would work with bars up to here, something like that. No, we turn this tone scale on edge and we’ve taken a viewpoint. We’ve taken a viewpoint of what is good and what is right and what is survival for us. And we’ve plotted it over against logic and so actually that cycle of action isn’t really logic, but that cycle of action put on there is how we apply the gradient scale called logic to our problem in our cycle of action. So I put a problem on this to see how the problem works out by gradient scales. Now you just set this problem 20.0, 40.0, 0.0 over here. Now how does it work out?

Because you have to give them reality. What’s reality? You have to get them back into some sort of an agreement with something because they’re out of agreement with everything. You can even get a psychotic over, by the way, into his own universe, or you can get him into an agreement with you.

You find that – by golly we sure are right before we make any postulates. A lot of people won’t act for fear they’ll be wrong. That’s a low level action. Now you find out that there’s a sort of an increase down as we go along here; there’s an increase from this uh… forty point zero right through to a conservation.

One of the oddest ways to get a psychotic over something is to get him into an agreement that something is what it isn’t. Don’t just keep agreeing with his… his… he says… he says, „That’s a hobbyhorse,“ and it’s obviously the windmill and so forth. Direct his attention someplace else; he’s got an identification on that windmill and he’s giving you the wrong name for it.

When you get down here to a maybe we want to conserve things and then we get a stop down here. So we have up here start at right; at maybe we have change – it would be in this area here someplace. But actually, there is an inner cycle here before you get to the maybe from 40.0 down the scale, there would be change and then you would get the conservatism of no-change and then you would get the change again. First you would get the change as you came over here from forty. You would get the change which you would call uh… uh… you would call this change before it got in there: increase or growth, increase or growth, and it got over here into the center. Growth has stopped and decrease has not yet begun. So we have conservatism there, maybe.

Get him over, mock him up an illusion, say „Do you see this little man, no, no, do you see this little man here?“ The guy will mock up a little man there for you, see? Maybe he’ll look at the one you’re mocking up and uh… he’s liable to say, „Yeah, yeah, I see that little man.“ Now you’d think you were leading him right straight off into hallucination and delusion; that wouldn’t be the case at all.

We… we’d better not go any further there, you see. I mean uh… we better not make too many changes, we’re here at an optimum state. This is a guy maybe in middle life. All right, now decay sets in and we get another change.

You say, „All right, do you see the little man jump?“

It’s the change of decay and it goes over here to wrong and that would be death. Survive, succumb. This could be creation, growth, conservation, doing things in life and so forth, then decay and death on that cycle of action.

„Sure.“ Yeah, he’ll agree with you, yeah. You’ve got a point of agreement. Takes two to make some universe like this one.

Or this could be considered over here at 40.0. We’ll cover all this material very much more thoroughly later. But at 40.0 we could have… up above 40.0 we start something at somewhere before we reach 20… before we reach that maybe we have 20.0 and that’s where we get optimum action about the thing. A heavy action, actually, a maybe is plus and minus opposed in some fashion or another so that you… you’ve got those things. You’re trying to maintain a balance and believe me you get plenty of action when you’re trying to maintain a balance on anything.

Now, what is a datum? Logic four, a datum is a facsimile of states of being, states of not being, actions or inactions, conclusions or suppositions in the physical or any other universe. Too wide, a little bit too wide a definition. Let’s modify that definition by this: It’s a datum resulting from a postulate.

And so you get over here and then you would get uh… your stop when we got down here. All right, now those two things compare. Now, if we’re going… if we’re going to work this problem out, we’re going to find we work it out by gradient scales.

We’ve got a postulate, you know, up in the Q’s. Now let’s just say a datum is something that results from a postulate; can be an idea, a thought, or anything else. We don’t have to put that in terms of energy, because postulates are things that govern a large order of activity and any part of that order of thought or activity could be a datum, couldn’t it? And it does not have to be stated that it is engraved upon energy and that is the definition of a facsimile.

Well, gradient scales, the best way I know and the best way I know to apply this in processing – your preclear is obviously wrong. He is obviously wrong. How wrong can you get? Human. You go into ARC with homo sapiens, practically 90% of the things you have to do to stay in ARC with homo sapiens are wrong. It’s just automatically.

It’s not engraved upon energy. This is true for this universe but it is not true for all universes. What’s a datum? A datum is anything which proceeds from a postulate. You say this room is yellow throughout. You made a postulate. You’ve said a postulate – you’ve already said there is a room, space, coordinates, location and so forth – is yellow throughout and uh… now we get a datum, that wall is yellow. That’s a datum. Uh… those walls are so far apart, and so on. You see you’re… you’re making comments and classifications and gradient scale data proceeding out of basic data. Very… it’s a good way of looking at it. None of these terms are absolute.

Look at the code of honor processing and try to make it stick. That’s a good survival code, but boy, homo sapiens kind of objects when you run it in there.

All right, five, a definition of terms is necessary to the alignment, statement, resolution, of suppositions, observations, problems, and solutions and their communications. Here’s a whole matter of definition. Definition is taken up so beautifully and expertly by Count Alfred Korzybski that it is very difficult to improve in any way upon his classifications of definitions or his understanding of definitions.

That’s a good survival code, if a lot of people were using it it’d be all right. So, you’ve got to back him up from way down here before just wrong. You’ve got to back him clear on up to the top.

Somebody said it a little shorter than Korzybski, uh… Voltaire – if you would argue with me, define your terms, and uh… Korzybski is speaking in the main about this universe, he’s using that reference point, and he is in the main working in an effort to gain a therapy which he never gains. The therapy intended in General Semantics, it would be the therapy resulting from any education, but an enforced discipline of forcing people to stop and think for a moment about this and that just to communicate better, puts a stop on the line. So it isn’t a therapy; it’s educational in its therapy level. It is not a process or a therapy which they tried to make of it and which it failed on.

Well, how do you… how do you do it? You have to pick him up someplace on a gradient scale toward that wrongness and back him up the scale and get him up tone scale to a place where he can better act and where he can get more right than he is wrong.

But it was too bad that they did that because it is what it is… it’s uh… a dissertation and a very wonderful piece of work on the subject of definition. But we put down here… this is not particularly an agreement or disagreement with that. I don’t think Korzybski himself would disagree with these. He might even have a little fun with them.

You’re not ever trying to get to a point where he’ll be absolutely right. Theoretically, that’s unobtainable. All right, that’s an application of a gradient scale. But there’s the basic gradient scale then. And a problem on it.

Definition, a descriptive definition is one which classifies by characteristics by describing existing states of being. That would mean this is a table. Uh… this is a table. Uh… it has a flat top. And uh… it has uh… legs. And uh… it sits on things. Of course, that also… that also describes numerous things. That’s a descriptive definition, but that’s true of any descriptive definition that after you’ve described and described and described why, you still don’t have any great clarity on the thing. Even if you take a drawing of a rhinoceros you’re liable to get a unicorn.

Now, let’s look at gradient scales just a little bit more here. Let’s look at a gradient scale which simply comes like this. Let’s look at the gradient scale of any part of a gradient scale; now this is a gradient scale of destruction.

Uh… the descriptive definition is very limited. A differentiative definition is one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not being. We say this is a table. Why is it a table? It is not a chair. Why is it a table? It is not a box. Why is it not a box? A box has no legs.

This gradient scale of destruction would start in. Here, here is your… your destruction. We’ll draw as down and here’s your gradients of destruction and here is uh… a gradient scale of volume. And this is small, large, small, large, volume of destruction.

And we could say this has legs and a box doesn’t have legs, therefore it’s not a box. And we keep saying what this is not. The most wonderful fellow in the world on this is the German. The German can go on with this and on and on and on with this, of describing something by saying what it is not.

Now we just walk the preclear into this. We’ve found a lot of things on the E-Meter. Now we found he couldn’t destroy a lot of things. So we take the smallest part of them – small volume of them. At a small volume destruction of a small number of what he can’t destroy and we get a mock-up.

And actually there’s a system of Germanic logic which runs like this: it is not, it is not, it is not, and it can t, it can t, it can’t. They’ve proven those points and then they simply assume this about it. That’s a gorgeous piece of… piece of logic. They say it… it… it isn’t and it isn’t and it isn’t and it can’t and it can’t and it can’t and they’ve described what it isn’t like and what its disabilities are, and then they they say that’s all that’s left. And you say woooo.

And we get a slightly larger volume of what he can’t destroy and we get a mock-up of that. Get him to execute that. If we can’t get him to execute that, get a smaller margin that he can execute and go up in the leaps and bounds that he can do it.

They… they’ve just got through assuming with typical Teutonic conceit that they have just exhausted all possibilities here. They… they’ve insisted that they’ve exhausted all possibilities of unlikeness and inability and therefore conclude an ability. And Germanic philosophy is full of this sort of thing. My God, if you do that you can prove one equals zero and two equals ten and that one over the square root is the acceleration of gravity. You can prove anything if you do that.

So he does that successfully, that means he can do this successfully. Now he can do that successfully, he can do this successfully. That successfully, he can do this successfully and finally he can do a large volume of destruction on it and he can get very close to an ultimate destruction in his mock-ups. And when he can do that on that subject, that means he’s rid of an awful lot of aberration.

So an associative definition is one which declares a likeness to existing states of being or not being. So you say that’s a table, it’s pretty well like a… it’s like a… well, it’s like a big table and uh… it’s like a chair except it’s not so high as a chair and a chair has a back, and so on, just go on like that. Now an action definition would be one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose. And that’s very interesting. Although it sounds sort of garbled as you read it there.

He can mock up then in excess of any facsimile he has on the subject. It just puts the MEST universe to shame. The MEST universe quits. It just quits right there. Is… its hold is so slight on an individual. You think it’s heavy.

Boil it down to this, boil it down to this. What that thing’s trying to say is simply this: here, here we have the classifications of insanity of Kraepelin. It’s actually Crap-lin but I… audiences snicker when I say that, for some reason or other. He worked an awful lot, long ago, and he made this terrific classification of psychotic states.

But it’s actually just very airy, when you go at it like this; you have to be careful because you’re liable to find your preclear sort of nnneeeaa. Don’t work too fast with this – be careful of it.

The Germans are morbidly interested in this sort of thing. And he goes on and on and on and on and on; he says there’s this state and that state and there’s this state and that state and this state and that state and woah rah, page after page after page. And then finally, having exhausted all states and having said so, he gets to the last classification and he says all other classifications are unclassified and so fall here.

All right, now, small to large, now that’s what we mean by a gradient scale of mock-up. Now you could actually have a gradient scale that would take in first… the first dynamic, then it would take in the first and second dynamic. Then it would – see your volume of magnitude, first, second and third dynamic would be the next mock-up, a next series.

This is the most gorgeous, by the way, piece of classification that has ever been done. And it hasn’t any use. Its level of use is demonstrated by the fact that there’s a place by the name of Walnut Lodge. I… I… They don’t see anything humorous in that, by the way; it’s Walnut Lodge. And that’s a spinbin down the line here. And uh… Walnut Lodge has… has… treats only… only uh… psychiat… oh uh… pardon me I… I said that accidentally, not as a gag, uh… uh… not as a gag.

Next series of mock-ups would be the first, second, third and fourth dynamics. Next series of mock-ups would be the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth dynamics. All right, now listen, mock up the scenery. All right, now let’s put some animals into it and now let’s blow that up. Or make it decay, or make it get old – do something with it.

They… they… they sent three people to see, to… to see me and every one of them was under treatment. And this was their staff. But anyway, very good people there, I’m sure, didn’t happen to meet any. Have some fine patients though. Anyway, they… they treat only schizophrenia. And so they take only schizophrenics. Now how do they get only schizophrenics? Well, anybody sent to Walnut Lodge is a classified schizophrenic. And they take somebody who is a dementia praecox unclassified or a more modern definition, a mania-depressive and they take him from Saint Elizabeth’s and they take him over to Walnut Lodge and he goes onto the books as a schizophrenic.

Now, put the MEST universe in there and away we go. Now, anybody is trying to infer in any way that I am just trying to blow up the MEST universe, I… I wish he’d… he’d stop on that because, uh… truth of the matter is, I am. Anyway…

Why? Because Walnut Lodge takes only schizophrenics. Now you can look at them and you say, „Now wait a minute, let’s go over this awfully slow,“ you say, „What’s a schizophrenic?“

We’ve got here then a gradient scale which would go like this. Let’s take a gradient scale of color. And this gradient scale would go something like this. And it would merely mean brightness of color. And it would run from none to brilliant. No color. All right.

„A schizophrenic? We take schizophrenics here.“

Now let’s work it on a no-color basis. The fellow has possibly black and white or possibly grey and not-so-grey, something on that order. All you would do would get him to contrast one and then contrast the other one. Anything that you could run.

You say, „No, no, no, what is a schizophrenic?“

Get a little bit of each and so on…’ small spots, and then move in time, space and location and handle him yesterday, handle him tomorrow. Now, let’s get a little bit bigger bit of color, and it doesn’t mean, uh… that means color. Uh… well get something a little, a little brighter grey this time.

„You know what a schizophrenic is,“ they say, „a schizophrenic is a general type of insanity and so when we take schizophrenics here that ends the whole thing.“

And mock that up here, there, everywhere – on top of the roof, under the house, in the basement, uh… below your feet, above your head, behind your back – all right.

Actually, the modern definition of schizophrenia… actually the American psychiatrist does not define schizophrenia from its root word of shizoid or schizoid, meaning scissors-like, and it means a split personality. And you think that a schizophrenic today is a split personality person? That’s not true. It hasn’t anything to do with… it’s… I don’t know, I don’t know what it is. I go around and I get these guys and I hold them against the wall and I say, „Now look, what… what is this?“

Now put it in yesterday, put it in tomorrow, now put it in next week, okay, now let’s get… let’s get something that’s s… quite a lot brighter than that. Let’s see if you can get any white. Well, very possibly he can get some white, but maybe it’s still grey, or maybe this time he can get some good dark black.

And they say, „Well, uh… we had to go to school for twelve…“

So you get this good dark black and you put it here and you put it there and you put it back and forth and you put it in front of the guy and you put it under his head, put it under his arm, put in tomorrow, and put it in next week, and put it in the year 1202, and – all right.

„Well, wai… wai… wait a minute now. All I want is a common English definition or a Latin definition or even put it in Sanskrit. I can find a translator, but I want you to tell me what so and so is or why.“ And you get the most… it’s… it’s just A=A=A=A explanations.

Now what we’re heading for is to turn on his color, so let’s ask him what his favorite color is and then let’s go on the theory that he couldn’t possibly get anything that was pleasing to him. Ask him what his favorite color is. Now, if he couldn’t get anything pleasing, if he could only get that much color, he couldn’t get anything pleasing to him, so let’s get something that’s rather displeasing to him.

Well, he rowed a horse because he rode a horse and that’s on down the line – no sense. You get that way by treating psychotics. Don’t ever treat psychotics.

And you say, „Well, all right, what’s your favorite color“, and he says, „Oh, green I think. Green is my favorite color.“ You say, „Get some very bilious green.“ Well, he’s perfectly willing to get that much bilious green because he wouldn’t be able to please himself to the degree of getting any nice bright good-looking green. So he’ll try to get some bilious green and he’ll say, „Well, it’s still kind of grey.“ And you say, „That’s all right, now let’s get it grey. Now let’s get it green again, bilious green, sickly green, got that? All right, get it grey, and so on.“

Anyway, this action definition merely tries to state, then, that the definition of something should lead to putting it into action or remedying it. You say schizophrenia. Here’s an action definition of schizophrenia which you might apply. This isn’t the definition of schizophrenia, nobody can find that. It’s buried in the archives of the Library of Congress or something.

And you just go on that way, back and forth, back and forth, and you put it in front of him, put it behind him, put it up to the right, and to the left, and under your head and in the next room. And over in the next lot and on a ship at sea and uh… then in tomorrow and then in the year 2897 and then in the year 610 B.C. and uh… all right. Next, you see.

It’s… schizophrenia is an idea that one is two persons, which is remediable by the discovery of the life continuums being dramatized by the individual. And that would be an action definition and when you’re defining things, particularly in Scientology, I wish you’d remember that. Define it by what it does or its cure. Don’t define it by what it is like or what it’s unlike or anything. Somebody says to you, „What’s an engram?“ Well, we have a technical definition which is a moment of pain and unconsciousness. That’s all right but that is not an action definition. That is a descriptive definition and so far is limited in use.

And in such fashion we would come right on down the line and if we just kept that up and kept that up as drill drill drill drill, something would happen along the line that would make his colors brighter, and brighter, and brighter, and something would suddenly trigger. Something would trigger and he would suddenly say, „Well, the devil with it. I can get colors of anything I want to. Of course that’s nonsense, I’ve been getting them here for minutes. I mean everything is all right.“ Okay.

So it’s the best… a clumsy way to define it but nevertheless a better way to define it, even if you say it this way, „An action definition of an engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness which has content, perceptic content, which has command value on the individual and which when reduced brings a greater state of self-determinism to that individual.“

The uh… great oddity this… this thing on a gradient scale. You wouldn’t believe it when you first start in on a preclear. This… this preclear’s saying neeoooww and ooohhh and all last night and then so on and he… the… and „it’s bad thetan and… the… and they can’t and… and every time I… holy God! I never want to have another night like that.“

Or you could define it this way, „An engram is a moment of pain or unconsciousness which can be erased by continuous repetition of its phrases and perceptions as though at the moment it occurred.“

What do you do? You say, „Well, all right, now let’s see, what do you say that was happening to you?“ And he tells you, he says, „Well, it was so and so and so and so and so and so and so and so.“ And you say, „Well, all right now, where… where did it happen?“ „At home.“

You see the reason I’m telling you this is a very interesting reason, that is the way you keep knowledge from being lost. The way to lose knowledge is to use descriptive definitions, associative definitions. It’s all very wonderful to say, that chair is like a hooblagobla. And it comes into a society which doesn’t have a hooblagobla. And then the information is then lost.

Well, you know you’re not going to get him into a nightmare that fast and you say, „By the way, uh… take the house across the street.“ „Yeah, yeah, yeah, what’s that got to do with it?“ „Well, take the house across the street and turn it Around on its foundations. Get a mock-up, turn it around on its foundations. All right. Now turn it back again. Now turn it a little pink.“

A chair is a four-legged object on which one sits and which is constructed by four legs, a seat, and a back, normally of wood. That tells them how to build it. Gives them some idea of how you build a chair.

„Now turn it blue, now put it about ten feet up in the air, and make it turn around again. Now make it come down on the foundation, now send it up into the air, now turn it around and bring it down to the foundation. Now put it behind your back. Okay, now let’s put it back on the foundations again. Now, let’s put it over in the next state and uh… let’s put it in last week.“

And when you’re defining Scientology or you’re writing it down, please remember what I say on that. Give them as much of what you do to cause or cause an effect on this thing you’re defining in the definition as you can and still be brief… get an action definition. I do not know but what the concept of action definition is new – I don’t know this. It might not be, uh… but it… it certainly… it’s certainly something I’ve never before seen stressed in the field of philosophy.

„Okay, now let’s reach into the house just next to it and pick up a bedroom.“

Uh… what is an action definition? Action definition is something which gives the remedy or which gives the method of use or construction. All right, you have to learn how to think in those terms by the way. You ought to have this stuff so that you can deliver it, so that you can can remember it without any textbook or anything else, so you can put it all back together again.

„Ohhoo oroor.“

This is essentially learning how to think with it. And it’s much more important to know how to think with it than it is to quote it. Very much more important, that’s why I seem to labor some points, and so forth. It’s… it’s just I want them punched up good and hard so that the evaluation line on the thing, if you… if you, all of a sudden one day, if you don’t know this… this subject well, all of a sudden one day you’ll be walking down the street and you, orienting, and all of a sudden whirr click, and the knowledge is yours and you’ve got it in mind and you can suddenly think with it and there’s no strain on it at all. And that’s… that’s just, after that, it’s very easy, very easy.

„Now just a minute, pick up the living room.“

One of the best auditors over in England said, „Well, I finally uh… finally got it fixed in my mind one day that anything which didn’t consist of an optimum motion was an aberration and after that I understood the whole thing and it’s very easy.“ I don’t know if – that doesn’t get home to me, does it get home to you?

„Okay, I got the living room.“

But he… he just told me this in his level of communication. Since that he’s been a wonderful auditor, everything going along fine. I don’t know what he got… what he got into the light, but something went click and after that the preclears are just coming off of an assembly line, click, click, click, click, click, click, click.

„Now rearrange all the furniture in it, now shake it up like a dice box, now put it behind your head. Now put it under your feet. Now put it up on the roof. Now put it down in the firehouse. Now put it over on the Eiffel Tower. Okay, now put it on Mars, now put it on Venus, now throw it into the sun so it will burn up. Okay, you got that? Now burn the sun up. Okay, you got that? All right. Now, let’s take a bedroom.“ „Da da da da da.“ „Now let’s… I said, let’s take a kitchen.“

Now, all of the early logics then really boil down to the fact that you have a non-wavelength thing called theta which is capable of creating space, time, and locating matter and energy in it, and that uh… there are various things you can do, and at this time the mostest we know you can do with great ease is to make postulates and postulates are a statement of states of being which then go into effect, or don’t go into effect, as the case may be. And proceeding from postulates are bodies of knowledge and data.

And after you’ve handled all that sort of thing, get a lawn chair out in the yard and handle that and tear it up and put dogs on it, and behind the back and over the head and under and locate it in space, and put it in last year, and… and put his grandmother on it and then bury it in the old churchyard. And do all sorts of things with this thing and then say, „All right, now take a bed.“

And knowing how to know is being free enough to be able to make postulates which will stick or not stick as the case may be, as you desire it.

„Well, mmmm, all right.“

Let’s take a break.

„Okay, now put it behind your head, above your head, over your head, around your head, around… top of the railroad, top of the firehouse, now put your Uncle George in it. Now invent an uncle to put in it. Okay, now put a blonde in it, now put a brunette in it. Yeah, what did you say? No, that’s all right, I said put a blonde in it. That’s good. I said put two of them in. Okay, now put them down… down in the city hall.“

„Now put them out in the middle of Grand Central Station. Now take Grand Central Station and turn it around. Now put your body in that bed in Grand Central Station. Now have eighty snakes jump on it.“

Well he says, „To hell with it – sure.“ you say, „All right, get the snakes. Well, get them eating the body up. „Well, you don’t know quite when you’ve passed over anything resembling snakes because his nightmare was all about snakes. This… it was something quite mysterious to you. Of course, you’ve got him in the middle of Grand Central Station, he knows that couldn’t happen in Grand Central Station. That’s a complete disagreement with reality and he thinks he can do it because it’s because he knows it couldn’t happen in Grand Central Station. As a matter of fact, you’ve got him back toward his own universe. You’re restoring power into the thing. But if he said yow-yow-yow-yaw-yaw, you said, „Well I just said have this long tall snaky-looking porter come up and tuck your body in better. Okay now have him shuffle off and have him hiss at somebody.“

„Yeah, all right.“ You just work it up that way. Finally you’ve got him in home in his bed at home and you’ve got the whole last 24 hours – you take the whole last 24 hours and you turn it right side up and you turn it left side down, and he says, „What are you doing?“ And you say, „Well, just take this space which contained the last twenty-four hours and turn it right side up and upside down“ and he of course does that, and so forth.

And he says, „What are you doing this for?“ And you say, „How about that nightmare you had last night?“ „What nightmare? Oh, the nightmare! Yeah, yeah, that nightmare, well, let’s get down to some processing, something important.“

Funny part of it is, the darn things stay keyed out. It… it’s just like a bunch of liars out in the old West, the MEST universe is lying like mad to this preclear and he’s lying to himself about perceiving it anyhow and what’s happening in it and what he’s scared about, and everything else. And you just keep talking it.

And by golly, after a while, his concentration on these points of agreement in the MEST universe will shift. This is really a problem in the centering of attention, the fixing and unfixing of attention units… is really this is a problem in to some slight degree. That’s uh… not wholly true but to some slight degree it’s fixed and unfixed. So you get that as a gradient scale.

Now your gradient scale could be these wide beams, one, two, three, four, five, that could be those wide beams or we could have a gradient scale that would go like this and there’d be one, two, three, four, five.

Get the idea? There could be a gradient scale within the gradient scale within the gradient scale. You can have the tiniest graduations imaginable. You’re having trouble with this fellow, you… you… you’re already starting in too heavy if you have any objections. You shouldn’t hang him up on… on when he… watch him when he’s processing and when he says, „Well, I… yeah, yeah, I can do that.“

Watch him, he’s holding his breath a little bit. „Yeah, yeah, I… I… I… I… I, yeah, I did that.“ Watch that; you’re feeding it too heavy. Just look at your preclear – it’s like reading a meter. If he says, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, you’re feeding it too… too slow. Get it somewhere in there where he’s saying, „Yes, yes, yes, uh-huh, yes, umm yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, what are we doing this for?“

That’s the way it operates with regard to him. So it’s up to you to monitor the gradient scale according to how fast your preclear’s taking it. And don’t ever let any preclear kid you into this, that there is any aberration or an upset that is so powerful that he couldn’t possibly mock up anything about it. NEVER let yourself be kidded that such a thing exists because it evidently doesn’t exist.

There is always a gradient scale that he can attempt. There’s always one. There’s always a level where he can strike in with a mock-up and win. Never otherwise. It appears to you perhaps at this stage of training that a mock-up is really a very light and filmy thing to be working with. Do you know how powerful and deadly facsimiles can be and how preclears can agonize and how long it should take? And you wonder what happens to these facsimiles; you just walk off and leave these facsimiles, just play around with mock-ups all the time. And you say, „Well, we do that all the time“, and so on. Well, we ought to do something too about the facsimiles.

You’re doing something about the facsimiles when you do the mock-ups. The mock-ups kick those facsimiles out, they unload them. You’re not converting energy, really, when you’re doing mock-ups. You’re not converting energy. You’re putting new energy into a new field, handling it in a new way, and the facsimiles actually come loose, detach, and blow, and that is that.

And you won’t have any trouble with any of that. That’s something for you to… to look at as you work with this. You are working the most direct process to an amputectomy of a facsimilectomy… That’s the most direct course through to that.

Now you see what this is all about. Gradient scales and how it formed out of the logics. It’s actually a very interesting application of a piece of knowledge which has been with us for a long time.

Okay, let’s call it an evening. Thank you.