Well, now that you're all adrift in the field of pure knowledge, you might as well get further adrift.

I am very, very happy to tell you today that I have notes. This is a very fine thing, to have notes. Your notes know all about it, you don't have to know a thing. When you get a pc all you do is take the notes, put them down on the auditor chair and go out for a smoke, come back and he's Clear. I mean, there's nothing to it!

This is a second lecture on the Axioms.

I'm always suspicious of a university which grades its students' notebooks - always suspicious of one. Because obviously they can't have any students, can they? I remember one notebook that used to be sold around in university I attended. They tell me it's been - it had been in circulation for fifteen years and the professor had never noticed it yet.

There is no reason to believe that a thing has to be located in space and time to be true. Just think of that for a moment. There's no reason why a thing should be located in space and time to be true.

Today we're going to talk about the Logics and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology. This is the first lecture on these Axioms in many, many years. Interest in these should be quite keen because concealed along the line -concealed, all the while making an effort not to conceal it, is a great deal more knowledge even than we have worked out at this moment. These are the basic postulates which make the track a track. These are the basic data of life and livingness. These data have proven true and constant, and are actually the senior data all the way along the line in this particular subject.

I asked old-time Scientologist one time a brain cracker. I asked him, "Do you locate your postulates firmly in space or time, or are your postulates not located in space or time? Now, which do you do?" And he told me the next year that...(laughter)

And oddly enough, at the Sorbonne, in 1953 I think it was, a professor there wrote me a letter and said whether these Axioms were right or wrong was beside the point, they were the first attempt to organize a study of the mind into precise terms.

Now, anybody - anybody who believes something has to be located in space and time to be true, is, of course, being victimized by his own Reality Scale to some degree, you see? He said, "It has to be a solid object and it has to be located over there for it to exist."

As a matter of fact, this opinion was not alone with this particular professor. And I found in 1953, late in '53, that where Dianetics was known in Europe, this was also known, and just like that is the way it was known. That right or wrong, this was the first attempt to organize human knowledge about the mind. And therefore, why, many good things could be expected of it, simply because it set a precedent. It was something brand-new on the face of earth.

Now, you've run up against this problem time and time and time again. Oh, you got careless, you fell over a cliff or somebody chopped your head off or you murdered your wife or something of the sort, you know? And they executed you - some minor foible of human existence, you know? And you lost a body. Well, that's too bad. And there's hardly a person present who actually hasn't experienced this particular thing of coming back and trying to make oneself heard. Trying to present oneself to the family or the friends or the manor or something of the sort, you know? This is a very common experience - very, very common experience.

Now, I suppose they had an idea that they could study these things and then revise them and look them over and so forth and come up with something really good, you know? And that's all right with me. It'd be - I'd be very happy if they came up with something better. But they keep reading them and using them and not revising them. Well, it must be there's some sort of a constancy here.

It's a frantic - frantic feeling comes over you, you know? The undertaker's chopping up the corpse and filling it full of formaldehyde or whatever undertakers do. And you say, "Hey!" you know, "Quit that!" you know, or something like that or, "What are you doing?" and so forth. And he just goes right on chopping up the corpse and filling it full of formaldehyde and sawdust or whatever they put into corpses. And wife comes in, something like that, and you say, "Hello dear, what are you worried about?" you know? Doesn't pay any attention to you at all, and maybe the most you'll get is a growl out of the dog. Sailing around without a body, don't you see?

Now, it was very amazing during this past winter of '58, '59 to make as many advances technically as were made. I was rather amazed that the time between the 20th American ACC, which was the summer of '58, and you might say now, that as much gain was made in technology - development of processes and the obtaining ofresults - as had been made in a previous five or six years.

And you get the idea you're totally invisible and that you're nothing. And this is a very bad experience. You don't like this. You don't like this.I remember one time I got struck by lightning down here in Sussex someplace, wearing armour. Stupid thing to do, you know. And I went sufficiently wog - Gormley Castle - I went sufficiently wog that I watched them put the body on the bed and take the armour off of it, and saw that it was going to be decently buried and so forth and so on. Just like it had nothing to do with me, you know? I don't know how many volts there are in a lightning bolt, but it was more than I was able to generate at that time.

Well now, when things were in good shape in December of '57 when the first MEST Clears - MEST Clear procedures were announced, and January of '58 when the first actual products were beginning to show up, we were making MEST Clears - certainly, certainly that was a tremendous gain. Not really though, we were merely parallel with about 1947.

And I went back over the Channel, went down to Bavaria, where I was born that time. And walked in, fell over the scrub lady. She was busy scrubbing the kitchen floor, you know - scrub, scrub, scrub, scrub and I walked through her. Well, she was aware of the fact of something happening. I guess I was still wearing an engram full of lightning, see. She was definitely aware of something having happened and she kind of went, "Yeep!"

Now, one wouldn't think that this many advances would follow such a peak. Here was this peak called MEST Clear. And then tremendous advances followed this. And those advances took place between the 20th American ACC, which was the mid- summer of 1958, and now. A little incorrect to say now, because you might say these things were at a high peak about February of '59. There hasn't been too much since February - except results. And the results just keep coming in, coming in, coming in. The cases that were never were touched they were - they're all scraped up and straightened out. And auditors that could never audit before are auditing.

And I went over at the kitchen table and looked for a tankard - I was very thirsty! This was a very stupid thing to get, but you get things like this. You get thirsty and you get hungry and - and it's miserable sort of thing. After a while you get so you don't care and you say, "I can't feel," and you don't get this anymore. Well, you're fairly upscale, you get mad at losing bodies. It isn't something you're unemotional about. You get upset about it and so forth. But I was thirsty. And I walked over to the table. My tankard had been removed. So I came down with a fist on the festive board, trying to make a tremendous crash and attract some attention, and my fist went straight on through the boards.

And - and things are booming here and they're booming there and we're looking into the teeth of a tremendous upsurge.

I said, "Oh oh, (sigh) I'm a ghost again." And I hadn't realized from the moment the lightning hit right straight on through, that I had stopped living, see, the way people are supposed to live, see? I went out and there was a full moon. My sense of humour came back to me, fortunately, and I stood there and howled at the moon for a while.

Some of the reports I'm getting, for instance, from Australia are couched in this wise. Australia considers itself in competition with other continents, since it wants to be the first all-Scientology culture. See? Big, new, ambitious look. Interesting.

It's quite upsetting losing a body and so forth, and nobody paying any attention to you. Well, if this goes on long enough, you do it often enough and you're sufficiently impressed with it, you get the idea that you are nobody when you haven't got a body. Now, it's a very easy thing to jump from there to losing a body and then not knowing anything about it. Do you see this gradient scale?

Squirrels - squirrels that one hasn't heard from for just years and years and years are crawling out of the wormholes in trees and saying, "No, you shouldn't do that, that's terrible." We always know when we're really going. When we're really going, people start showing up that we haven't heard of in a long time and say, "You shouldn't have done that." It's quite remarkable.

You lose something, it's gone, right? Well, that's - that's gone. You find many people who can't speak French until they go over to France again, and then they're around there for quite a while and they begin to speak French. And then they leave France and they can't speak French after a short while. Then they go back to France and it takes them two or three weeks to get geared up. It's havingness. It's actually French havingness. It has nothing to do with anything but the mass. They've got mass associated with thought, you see?

Well, what's more remarkable than any of those gains was the fact that they were already in the Axioms. Isn't that interesting? We look back and we find them already in the Axioms.

So anyway, an individual loses something - well, that's kind of like forgettingness. They forget all about it, they say. And then the next step is nobody pays any attention to you and you keep noticing this. You keep walking up to people without a body, you know, or sailing through the air or something like that - and nobody notices it. Unless, of course, you swipe them with a beam or something like that, and they think, "My, isn't the atmosphere electric tonight." If you're sufficiently an electric eel you occasionally have committed the overt act of practically electrocuting somebody, and after that you stop touching them, you know - stop touching people.

Perhaps the biggest - the biggest upsurge took place on my observation of exactly what an auditor was doing who couldn't audit. And exactly what a preclear was doing on whom we could not get results. And exactly what he was doing you have already had, which is the Reality Scale. But the basis of that we call not-isness -not-isness.

And you just go down scale from there and finally you say, "Well, I - no body. I'm nobody," see. And after a while, why, the automatic action, "Lose a body, don't know who I am, don't know where I am, don't know what I'm doing. Find another body. I don't know who I've been." See? Instant response, "I don't know who I've been. I haven't got that body anymore so therefore I don't know who it was, where it was or what it was doing," and so on and so on and so on.

And when we look at not-isness, we've got the whole thing; and it's right in the Axioms. The Axioms of Scientology years and years ago covered this subject of not- isness.

Well, you get people going further than that who are walking around perfectly alive in a body. That "perfectly alive" is sarcastically stated. Actually, you're not quite ever as alive in a body as you are out of one, when you're in good shape. When you get trained along this cycle I'm talking to you about, though, it's a little bit different.

Now, it isn't that this was a forsworn, fantastic future prediction or something of that sort. These things, these Axioms are known to be true in the world of postulate. In the world of agreement and postulate they're known to be true. All right, what do we do here? We try to tie them down to this life and this universe and that takes technology.

There are people around that when you remove the object from their vicinity and out of their view, they totally lose a memory of it. You ever run into anybody that - so on?

Now, to most people the basic realities of Dianetics and Scientology are its technical realities, not its philosophic realities. To me the realities which are real in Dianetics and Scientology are the philosophic realities - meaning its postulate and agreement levels of how all - this all came about, you see, rather than how do we undo what came about. And you'll find many people will stand around and say, "Well, that is a good process and that isn't a good process," and they never talk about the theoretical side of the subject at all. Well, here we see the theoretical side covered very widely.

Now, the most common example I can think of is somebody who parks his car, goes to a show or something, comes out and doesn't know where he parked his car. Now, that's not quite so bad as the fellow who parks his car, goes into the show, comes out, gets on a public conveyance and goes home. You see, that's just a little bit further down. This fellow at least did remember that he had a car, you see, when he didn't know where it was. Not knowing where something is, is at least remembering that it is. Got it?

Now I want to invite your attention, before we go into the Axioms of Scientology, to some Prelogics which were originated here in England in 1954. Now, the Logics and Prelogics are just as much a part of the Axioms of Scientology as they were the Axioms of Dianetics. You should not forget, or lose sight of, the Prelogics and the Logics, because much of the material which you have before you stems straight out of the Prelogics. And you look at the Prelogics and then after you've been practicing Scientology for a while they look like old friends, even though you haven't seen them before. That's because so much of the material you're using stems out of them.

All right, now, the fellow who - if it isn't there, he doesn't remember it - is totally dependent on mass to give him memory. When he walks out of the show, he doesn't see any car, so he doesn't remember he has a car. So he just goes home on a public conveyance. When he gets home, he gets up the next morning and because he has a garage, you see, the garage reminds him of the car. And he says, "Well, drive down to work now." Or whatever he's got to do with the car. He says, "Where's the car?" Only now has he remembered there is a car, not that he left it downtown. This goes off for sometime with a little yammer-yammer from the wife. After a while, with enough yammer-yammer, why, he remembers that he left the car at the movies last night when he went downtown to the movies. Got the idea?

So what we actually should study in looking this over - the Prelogics, the Logics and the Axioms of Scientology. And we should also look over and read the Axioms of Dianetics, more as interest than anything else. Because this really was the first attempt to organize, in an orderly fashion, a science of life.

A person who is dependent on mass for memory can become more dependent on mass for memory to a point where, in the absence of any specific mass, there is no memory of the mass. Got the idea? This all stems from dependence on mass- memory.

And we have gone by and bypassed many of these earlier Axioms. You'll notice there are tremendous number of Dianetic Axioms. They go on and on and on. They're clear over here to Axiom 194. Now, that - there were actually some more than that and - however, they take up complexities in which we are not terribly interested. But from a theoretical or philosophic side, there are things in the Dianetic Axioms that tend to organize ontology and tend to organize entomology - etymology.

We argue about this in class, sometimes, about notebooks. Individuals - perfectly all right to take notes, but an individual who is depending on the mass of the notebook to totally remember, you see, has already taken a step in the direction of forgetting. Got the idea? Perfectly easy to do.

Now, why? That's because we had to sort things out about knowingness before we could know about something. Well, we find the fundamentals of knowingness are contained in the Prelogics and Logics.

Now, you can go back the other way so fast, hardly with even any processing. You can go back the other way quite rapidly, of just make up your mind to start remembering things in the absence of mass. And you tend to trick this out - it'll occasionally make you feel sort of sick or sort of odd or sort of peculiar.

But I'll give you an example of the Axioms of Dianetics here, which is - which are interesting. Axiom 188, clear up along the line we find, Absolute good and absolute evil do not exist in the MEST universe. Well, that's true, but that stems out of an earlier Axiom: Absolutes are unobtainable.

If you feel rather dismayed, you go around saying, "Telephone number, Speedwell 9292, yeah, Speedwell 9292, yeah. I'll remember that number. Speedwell 9292, Speedwell 9292." You're trying to put some sound waves up there and to make a little series of ridges or print it on some kind of a facsimile in front of you in order to remember it.

Now, one fine day, you're - find yourself in an argument with - with some fellow, a priest or something like this; and they're great argufiers. They're tremendous argufiers. I used to play chess and argue with a priest. My chess got so associated with this argument I haven't played a good game since.

Well, you can go from that - from writing it down to repeating it a few times so that you can remember it - to just remembering it, and if it exists in PT, just knowing it. See, you can go right on up scale to just knowing it again, see? Want to know what a phone number is, just know it.

But he was dealing in the field of absolutes. And he was having a very happy time dealing in the field of absolutes. And there was red and black and white and black and right and wrong and evil and good and so on. And to a fairly reasonable man this looks like bigotry. See, it's zealotism, it's dealing with the extremities and never looking at the middle of anything.

So mechanisms which tend to reinforce memory are mechanisms which enter when the individual has already decided that he can't remember.

We have the embracement of the basic philosophies of Aristotle merely because they wanted extremes. But we read over Aristotle and we find out the lesson of extremes which were apparently read from Aristotle by the later Christian doctrines and so on. Most Christian doctrines, you know, are based on the pagan philosophers -Aristotle, Plato and so forth. You might not realize that totally, but the early Christian church proved itself to be true by the philosophies of Plato. I don't know if you knew that.

And we get the first, second, third and fourth postulates - fascinating. The native state: total knowingness. First postulate: not-know. Second postulate: know. Third postulate: forget. Fourth postulate: remember. This is very technical data.

It's quite interesting.

You hear us speak, now and then, of "This is a first postulate." We say, "This is a first postulate." Well, that doesn't mean anything more complicated than this: that the second postulate depends for its stickiness and its force on the existence of a first postulate. The prior postulate in time is the thing which gives force to the second postulate, which follows it. You have to take apart first postulates to a marked degree - this is quite true along the line - you have to take apart first postulates or odd-numbered postulates, at least, before you can take apart the even-numbered postulates, you see, because they're after the fact. This is a - this is a fascinator, this particular aspect of memory and so on.

These pagan philosophers evidently had something. But nobody read all of them; nobody read all of these documents. They just took what they wanted out of them and let the rest go. Because Aristotle talked about something called a pendulum, the Aristotelian pendulum which - things tended to swing to extremes. And he discussed this all philosophically and he was adequately aware of the fact there was a middle ground. But the students of Aristotle were not aware of the fact there was any middle ground or any reasonability whatsoever. And so they merely wanted some way to swing to extremes. And we find the modern logician referring to Aristotelian logic as being a two-valued logic. Aristotle didn't invent it. It was invented by students of Aristotle.

Native state - you have a potential know of everything. But maybe there isn't anything to know. But you could know everything there is by - if it is, or if it existed. Got the idea? If there's any knowledge, you've got it -that's native state. If any knowledge exists anywhere, you have it! Got that?

Now similarly, you'll find people going through these Axioms here and there just to prove their own points. Well, that's fine. If they need reinforcement for their own points, why, I'm very happy to provide the reinforcement.

Now you have to not-know, by theory, the whole ruddy works, in order to forget anything. Now, you just say, "not-know." See, and you just don't know anything now, you blank it all out. Now you can have the happy circumstance of going around and finding things to know! Which is quite a game. After you've not-known architecture, you can go to school and study architecture. Get the idea?

But these are what they are. The basic understanding of life was put together in this form so that we could have a progressive organization that we could profit by.

You find you're pretty stupid sometimes, too. You sit there and look at a Gothic arch and you say, "Renaissance" you know. "Renaissance, yes - Italian Renaissance. Yes - rococo school. Oh, no, there's something wrong with this," you know? "This is a uh... This is a uh... Now, don't tell me - I know it's an arch, it's an arch of some kind. Uhm

Now, we have some riches still in the Logics and Prelogics that have never been mined. And similarly, in the Axioms of Dianetics, you could say that too; but particularly the Axioms of Scientology. Not-isness is contained in not less than three Axioms of Scientology. In other words, the Axioms of Scientology had forecast the tremendous technical development which did not take place for another six years. So there's still other material in this other material. It's - it's, you might say, a little more than mental exercise looking at it, because if you can see these things, if you can understand them, if you can learn them, why, life tends to simplify and even get more interesting. Certainly gets a lot less confusing.

- arch - arch - the wheel and the arch and the wheel. Italian ra-uh-rococo-uh... Whew - what is the name of this arch?"

Now, if we look over this idea, however, of studying them, what are we studying? This is fabulous, you see? I couldn't teach you any of these things unless you already knew them. But if you already knew them, then you must have forgotten about them to have to read them. Do you understand? So, there must be a forgettingness between you and these Axioms. And so we find it's the case. When any student at HPA/HCA level starts studying the Axioms he generally goes, "Duuhh." And the exact mechanism of how he goes, "Duh," is quite interesting. And that is to say, he already knows these things, you see? The woof and warp of his life - the -you might say, the felt is woven into the woof and warp of his life by these things.

Now, you get told, "It's a Gothic arch."

Here's life, its basic postulates and agreements, which he then no longer confronts, has backed away from, has flinched from and he has forgotten. Well, forgettingness is done in various ways, basically a postulate, but down the line a little bit it's mud. And there's-he'll get into some kind of a mental goo that he has associated with forgettingness, and you say, "Tra-la-la-la-la" the Qs of the Prelogic.

"Oh-ho-ho-ho! Yeah, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! It's a Gothic arch. Yeah. That's good, good, I got it now. Got it now. Okay, as I was saying this uh... You sure this thing didn't come out of the Renaissance?"

You say, "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses." And the individual says, 'Uh-sa, da, da-da, da. What? Wha-what-what's that?"

And the fellow is doing a skid. Maybe the first time he ever studied architecture, or the first time he ever built a church or anything like that, why, it was a whole bunch of Gothic arches, you see? And he's got experiences. He's got knowledge all mixed up with a Gothic arch.

"Well," the fellow says, "all right, now just go over it calmly and dispassionately. 'Self-determinism...'" One student trying to teach the other student these - these things, you know? "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses."

Now he's got to forget it all before he can remember it. See, if he knew it he would just keep on knowing it. But he's gone through all the mechanism of forgetting it which is the third postulate. Now he tries to do the fourth postulate of "remember," which remembers through forgettingness, you see, in order to know again.

"Well, sure. Self-det--. Huh?"

This is one of the wildest things to see somebody standing there trying to remember something. It's the goofiest mechanism you ever ran into - remembering something. It's a fourth postulate. You'll get further on old processes, as we discovered in '54, if you run "forget." "Forget" is at least an odd-numbered postulate.

But if the study is pursued - remember what I told you about order being the basis and disorder being the second postulate. Therefore, the first postulate can discharge the second postulate. So the action of going over the Axioms in general, the Logics and Prelogics, simply results in the discharge of a tremendous amount of stupidity.

You start running somebody on the basis of "What can you remember? Tra-la, tra-la. What can you remember? Tra-la, tra-la." And he gets a half a dozen recalls and he's had it. See, and then he starts going over these same recalls again. Well, if you ran something like, "Tell me something you have forgotten about Father." This individual would collide with this one and he'd muck around with it and all of a sudden stuff would start to reveal itself. Well, what's happening? He's doing this skid from three to four. See that?

Grogginess, susceptibility to flows, all of these things could be subheaded just "being stupid." They are mechanisms of forgetting, you see? Mechanisms of forgettingness.

Now, there's an older process, Op Pro by Dup Not-know. "What could you not-know about that object," you know? Or take a person outside - a walkabout process - take a person outside and show them people. "Tell me something you could not-know about that person?"

Now, when we say, "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses," we can study this, we can read it, we can know it. Why can we know it so well? Because it's already known.

The first thing the person tells you, "Well, I could not-know his name."

Now, there are various things that we could learn about these Axioms, but the one thing I wouldn't want you to learn about these Axioms is simply a parroting of a number of words which sound like the tinkle of a temple bell and sounding brass. It's just nowhere, you see? That'd be the wrong way to approach this whole problem.

"Come off of it, you don't know his name. What can you not-know about the person?"

What one seeks to reach is one's understanding. If one can use these things in life, or if he can understand life by them then he can understand because simply he can understand. And a study of them culminating in an ability to know them, without getting stupid, is a very particular and beneficial type of process. Quite an amazing thing! Some groups, just as an experiment over the years, have undertaken a study of, let us say, the Logics or the Axioms of Scientology. And have done nothing but study them and discuss them and so on and read them, and try to memorize them, and forget them and discuss them. And then try to have at it again and then understand them for a short time and then forget it all the next day and have gradually brought these things out into the clear. And just in that process all by themselves, they made enormous progress in the direction of clearing. Very slow, but certainly very beneficial and quite stable.

"Well, a person ... . Well, I could not-know he's got a head." "All right. That's good. That's what we mean." See?

Let's - let's look over the Logics now and find something that is new, not old, called the organization of the science of education. Education cannot occur in the absence of at least an intuitive grip on the Logics. This is very amazing, very amazing.

You run that process for a while, and this fellow - ARC picks up and he brightens up and he starts beginning to remember things and he starts beginning to remember things and everything gets beautifully bright. What are you doing? You're doing a skid clear over here to the fourth postulate, you see? You're running "not-know" which is postulate one. But that's above his grasp and he starts skidding over here to postulate four - which is remember." And he starts remembering things. And the darnedest things, he recalls the darnedest things while he's running this not-know process. Well, don't be startled if all of a sudden he goes totally foggy.

Because there's a lot of people talking about education today. And a tremendous number of people today who are being very chary about running universities and running schools and so forth, that I don't think they could teach anybody anything. Because they haven't any basic stable data for education!

You say, "What's your name?"

There are several technical drills that I could mention in passing rather than have them get swamped and lost. There were several drills. I think they were used in the 17th ACC, if I remember rightly. These technical drills were how you got a datum into somebody else's skull. And you gave him the datum and then he discussed it in certain ways, then you repeated the datum to him, you got him to repeat the datum back to you and you went back and forth over this datum - only they were very precise and rather arduous drills. It's a good thing to remember that these exist somewhere. There's no reason to go into them right now but they are called to your attention. I am sure they appeared in the Professional Auditor Bulletins and they're probably somewhere along that line.

He'll say, "I'm - swear I don't know. It's just... I don't know my name. Now, what you've done, you've just run this and you've exercised me into a point where I just not-know everything. And that's what you've done to my memory."

Now, these - these were educative. And we discovered at once the various barriers to education and examined them very interestedly. It all comes under the heading that an individual is taught what he basically knows, and in the process of teaching it, his - of learning it, his stupidity is restimulated. And until he is taught it basically, often enough and long enough, he'll still have some stupidity that will come off. But if he is taught it adequately, the stupidity is no longer there and he can use the subject.

What you've done - you've actually done a remarkable thing. You've brought him up to "forget," which is at least only a third postulate.

We get to the first thing that we would require of an educational science, which would be the relay of information - this is just a paraphrase - the relay of information or data from one person to another person, or from one mind to another mind, so as to leave it susceptible to use or available for use in the other mind. That's just a paraphrase, you see?

Now, if you've got him up to "forget" for a while, and you run "not-know" some more and he keeps forgetting and forgetting, he'll get an odd phenomena occurring. Every time he not-knows something, why, he knows all about it. This is one of the first things that shows up.

Now, if we said, "'Ug-wug, spatter mug,' and those are the magic words which you must write on your examination paper. If you wrote those, why, you all get an 'A' and everything would be fine. You'll all get certificates and that would be it. 'Ug-wug, spatter mug,' that's all you'd have to remember and write down. Doesn't mean anything to you, didn't mean anything to us."

He's running this on people in the park, the auditor's pointing out people to him, "Tell me something you could not-know about that person."

Now, the process of teaching "Ug-wug, spatter mug" over four, six - in the United States I think it's getting up to an optimum of 135 years of education - that is, before one is permitted to work. This was meaningless on the part of the person who taught it, was meaningless on the part of the person who received it and the stupidity of it on the part of the person who taught it simply Q-and-Aed with the stupidity on the part of the person learning it. And this must be true if I tell you the other item. Nobody intended anybody to use any part of it to do anything!

And he says, "Well, I could not-know that person's wearing a green - you know what that person's name is? That's John Smith. He lives at 642 West Clapham Avenue and he's got a wife and three children and he's got certain papers in his pocket, and his name's and address on the letter in his right-hand breast pocket is so-and-so. And the suit was made in such-and-such a place."

So if information is not for use, it's for nothing. Unless, of course, I suppose, you just could get some kind of a serene joy of pure knowingness or something and just sit there and know.

And the auditor who doesn't at that moment say, "Thank you," and ask the next question, is being very stupid indeed. Well, this process failed, by the way, because auditors kept getting startled by it and wouldn't complete the process. It made them superstitious or something. They got weird about this thing, you know? This person was developing the capabilities of a seer. You know, capabilities... You know, look at the wall, know who built it and how they were built it and how long ago the wall was old and what's underneath the first layer and the second layer and the third layer of paper, and what the old lady looked like that lived in the house. You get the idea.

I had - I found - I was running an engram on Mary Sue one day, and we found an area of track where they had a great big bullding up in the sky. And everybody did something. It was old space opera stuff. And everybody in this building was simply engaged in knowing. They didn't - they didn't use any data. They didn't send any data anyplace. They didn't do anything with the data and the data was not related to anything. They were engaged in an exercise of pure knowingness. They just sat there. We ran all the way through it and all of a sudden she almost blew out of the chair - she never experienced such boredom in her life.

The whole works, with big certainty. Well, why not, why not? Here you have knowingness in the absence of mass, which is what is being conquered here, you see?

Well, there was a perfect example of beautiful serenity of pure knowingness, merely contemplating it and so forth. Well, all right, there are such subjects. I am sure there is such a thing. But what we're inviting there is an absence of communication. So you can know without communication, that's for sure. But nothing about the knowingness will manifest if communication is absent.

Well, you're taking over self-determinism of knowingness, you see? A person self- determines his own knowingness. But few auditors quit just because a person said, "The person's name and address is J. B. Ress and he lives at such-and-such a place and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on." They - few of them quit at that. But a large number, in the early days on this process, used to become too upset when it ran into exactly the auditing command performed. The exact auditing command was performed. "Tell me something you could not-know about that person."

Application is, therefore, communication plus knowingness. Or knowingness plus communication equals application. And the moment that you add communication into the line, then the beauties and joys of pure knowingness blow out the window.

"Whop!" And the person disappeared to the pc. Just disappeared! Self-determined disappearance of people. Self-determined disappearance of walls, books, anything under the sun, moon and stars.

Communication is a necessary part of education, very definitely. So is any other part of Scientology.

Now, a hypnotist can always produce very, very low-scale mockery phenomena of actual capabilities. When the individual is taking no responsibility for it at all, on the hypnotist's say-so they can do these things.

So I don't know how anybody ran a university without being a Scientologist. I don't, frankly! Unless - unless a university was best defined as a stadium totally surrounded by small buildings.

But this individual is way up, quite alert, and the auditor says, "Tell me something you could not-know about that man."

'Now, where we look over these - these Logics, we are struck by this fact. That here we have, in actuality, only the need of a few labels such as "education", "communication"- some of these things which I have just mentioned, you see?

Pc says, "His hat." And to the pc, the hat disappears. Whhhh! Gone. "Now, tell me something you could not-know about that man."

Definition of what education is, a few drills to teach somebody something, and the rest of this about knowledge, to actually round out a highly scientific education subject. How to educate. There are numerous applications, then, for these things. All you'd have to do is put some meat on the bones and you'd have a new science. You see? Got that? Just put some meat on the bones, you'd have a new science.

"His head." Whhhh! Head gone. Get the idea?

Now, why is that? Because these are the bones on which life has always laid meat to make something. Get the idea? Doesn't matter whether you have a skyscraper or a tunnel under a river or a new airplane. Doesn't matter whether you have a clinic that you're trying to persuade soldiers to be good when they're on leave, or... It doesn't matter what you're doing, or what life was trying to communicate about or accomplish, or how life was trying to be lived, these were the bones on which the meat was being laid. And pretty soon it got to be pretty ragged meat, because they were putting meat on meat, you see? And they were putting meat on meat on meat. And then they didn't notice that some of the meat had sort of rotted away and they put on some more meat, you know? And they got more and more complicated, more and more complicated, more and more complicated and fell away from basic simplicity

And the auditor is pretty sure that if he kept it up, it would disappear for him, too. And more auditors have come back and told me, after these walkabout around the park processes, "We ran it until everything he looked at was disappearing, and uh..."

You want to know the cycle of life? It is the cycle of making simple things more complicated. Various activities are obsessed with this. You give a simple problem into the hands, for instance, of a modern mathematician, you're liable to get back the most complicated thing you ever heard of - incomprehensibly complicated! It almost blew him to pieces if you gave him a very simple problem. It excited some misemotion, usually.

"How many things disappeared?"

Just walk up to some modern, highly paid, totally government-cloistered mathematician and ask him, "Say, old fellow, how much is two and two?" Well, he'd think you were being sarcastic, he'd think this, he'd think that, he'd think you were stupid. He'd think anything but how much is two and two! Well, there's nothing wrong with you asking this mental giant, "What's two and two?"

"Well, we - I let him get about - disappear about three before we quit. Ha-ha. And we had it flat all right."

Not too many moons ago, putting on my false whiskers and real hair, I sneaked out to a laboratory where they were running a developed and modernized UNIVAC. They didn't call it that. It's a good enough name-mechanical brain, big mechanical brain - huge thing. Great big standard banks, great big channels for things to pour around on. Beautiful bullpen arrangement - data that couldn't be solved would gather in this bullpen and go round and round and round. And the wheels would whirr, and the meters would click and so on. It filled about two large rooms, this thing and all of its equipment.

No, they just barely started to edge out of "mass makes us know." The automatic formation of mass, the automatic appearance and disappearance of mass in connection with knowingness, or the need for mass in order to know, was being solved in the pc. And that's very far from the end of that process. There are very few auditors ever pushed it any further. It's too spooky.

Well, it had a keyboard and it had a tape answering and so forth. And I was trying to explain to one of the scientists that was operating this thing, I was trying to explain to him that that brain wasn't smarter than his brain because it took his brain to figure out a question to ask it and then took his brain to use or utilize or rationalize the answer which it gave. I swear if St. Peter had suddenly walked into the devil you couldn't have seen anybody more horrified at such atheism, such - I was an heretic, I was an heretic and so on. This guy couldn't get this; he couldn't get that he was smarter than the machine. And we almost came to blows, but being a Scientologist we didn't because I smoothed him out and got him interested in something else. Got -found something else he couldn't confront either. And...

There are many ways to turn on the ability of being a seer, a soothsayer or a fortune teller or something like that in a pc. One of the odd ones, by the way, is "Find something in this room that is having an effect on something else in this room." In other words, that's merely spotting cause. You can run that on a very low-scale process and you can run this on groups with considerably interesting results.

He had the machine running, only it was idle because it was over a weekend. But they didn't turn it off because it took some fantastic number of hours to get the thing whirring and wheeling and checked out again. The thing was only being dead for twenty-four hours, you know? So they just let it sit there. You see, it was too complicated even to switch off because if they ever switched it off; why, Lord knows what would happen. They were really worshiping this thing.

Because they go away able to predict for fifteen, twenty minutes ahead at a crack, exactly what's going to happen. You widen their time span. Because you've put them at cause over effect without making them totally responsible for the effect. And very low scale cases can run this rather easily. And it turns on their ability to predict.

I suppose in three or four years if I go back they'll all be walking around in yellow robes wearing prayer wheels or something, praying to the machine. Probably they'd be sitting over in the corner of the room putting their questions to the machine with prayers, you know? And random short circuits will occur in the machine, you see, and they'll figure that out as some communication which is highly symbolic and which means a certain thing, you know? I can see them three or four hundred years from now running the whole society because the machine blew a fuse, you know?

They know when traffic lights are going to go on and off. They know that such and so a person standing on the corner is going to turn around.

Because - something - very, very goofy.

Now this happens quite ordinarily and routinely to people on this - "deja vu" it's called, "I know I have been here before." You know, the person jumped up the time track and back down the time track, you know "th-boomp." And he dislocated himself in time and then therefore he knew he's been there before because he will be there. But he's at the "will be there" that he was there before. And he gets himself all mixed up.

So I walked over to the machine and I said, "Well, what is this? Just a keyboard. Looks like an adding machine keyboard."

So he says, I know just exactly what - I knew just exactly what that person was going to say next."

He said, "You have to make a keyboard - this keyboard here punches a tape which puts the problem on the tape. And here," he said, "I'll show you something about it." He put a differential equation on it, one way or the other and he was - punched it all out. And it was very nice and ran it through and so forth. And it went into the machine. And it says, "Whirr, whirr, purr, purr," you know, "zoom, zoom, zoom.." And came out with, "The dy to the dx, the dy to dx, dy to dx, dy to dx equals 2 over

Well, this is just an example of total knowingness. And you start shoving a person up into native state, he gets all sorts of weird and interesting phenomena. There's nothing very startling about it when you've been through it a few times. You know exactly - yourself, you're on a prediction of behavior as far as a pc is concerned.

-195 to the nth."

These processes, by the way, are not the key processes to clearing. But they are certainly processes which heighten an individual's ability to know, particularly in the absence of mass.

And I thought, "Gee, that's wonderful. That's wonderful. What the hell does that mean?"

Now, there are various ways to return total recall to a person on the whole track. Various ways to do this. One of the best ways, you might say, to do this is to just get him over being upset on the whole track. In other words, put him in control of the misemotion, misalignment and the upsets to which he is subject by reason of having lived.

So I says, "Do you mind if I make a tape?"

Now, let's look back at this phenomena of exteriorizing, finding one's self nothing, apparently; not being recognized, therefore knowing nothing, so on. Of course, a thetan who has gone through the exercise of native state as a total know - gone through the exercise of not-knowing everything, so that he can now know something selectively, so that he can forget it, so that he can remember it - when he's gone through all of this concatenation from one end to the other, about any deep shock is liable to produce any of these states. And what is easier for him to do than to just not-know everything?

"Oh," he says, "go right ahead, go right ahead. Place is yours, place is yours, Ron."

Now, when he has forgettingness and so forth associated with physical pain, and so on, he doesn't want to forget, he must forget, he has to forget, he doesn't know, he must know, and he's all tangled up about what he ought to do and what he ought to remember, and zzzza-za-za-za-za. You see this? He gets confused.

So, I said, "2 plus 2 equals - query." Put it on the tape. Put it in the machine. Hasn't given me 4 yet. Rather alarmed this chap. The 4 never came out the other end of it and he was a little bit upset.

Most people believe that when a person is out of a body and on his way, that he's well out of it and doesn't feel anything. And the person's very happy that he no longer has a sore neck where the executioner just cut his head off. He's backed out of the body and he's gotten totally away from it, hasn't he?

He said, "What's alarming about it," he says, "that problem will probably move over into the bullpen and keep going round and round and round and round." And he said, "Someday we'll be running some rocketry." (This is the machine, by the way, that figures out the orbits.) And he says, "We'll be running the rocketry equations to figure out the orbits of some man-carrying missile that's being launched to Mars, and we'll get as a preface or in the middle of the thing, 2 plus 2 equals - eureka! 4!"

Ha! It's not true. It's not true at all.

Now, this in essence is - this mechanism is just too complicated to answer a simple question. There's no great virtue, however, in complication - no great virtue. There's no particular virtue in having everything super-simple either. But there is no virtue in hiding it from yourself that things can be simple. Because things can be simple and you can reduce things to fundamentals. Things can be simple.

The fellow who is in bad mental condition commits suicide, certainly might relieve the duress of the immediate environment or that particular time track momentarily and feel that he's gotten away with something. But as a matter of fact, by not confronting it, he's made himself the effect of it. As a result, he can back out and not feel. By postulate, he not-knows the feeling of having had his head chopped off or his brains blown out or something like that.

Someday, when the world looks just too confusing for words, look around and find something that you finally determine is a simplicity. And you'll be surprised how much confusion blows off just in the progress of it. Just look around in the problems you're enmeshed in and try to find a simplicity about the problems. Because simplicities most easily add up to certainties. And complexities most easily add up to uncertainties.

You can feel much better outside than you can inside. It's quite interesting. You feel much better outside than you can inside. And by that I don't mean feel more well.

So, the more uncertainty or stupidity a person is susceptible to, the greater complexity he will enter into any problem or activity. Isn't that a nasty crack? If you think that over for a moment, it's a terribly nasty crack. The more stupid a person is, basically the more incompetent he is, the more complexity he will enter into activities or problems that he's confronting.

I remember one time, being totally, horribly startled. I thought I had something terrifically solved. I picked up a robot body. And I'd just gone through a rather painful experience, and I said, "Well, obviously, this thing's got no nerves in it. Why don't I carry along with this thing for a while, you know?" And boy, was I startled. One arm of it got blown off and hit a bulkhead back of me. And did it hurt! Well, I would like you to explain how a piece of metal without any nerves in it could hurt. Well, of course, it can't. And you look this over and you'll find out that no body or no object that you ever had, ever hurt - but you've hurt. So when you're out of a body, you're you - how is it you can't hurt? But if you say, "I am nobody and I am nothing and I can't feel and I can't attract attention and I don't amount to anything, then of course, I can't hurt either."

You listen to this someday. You see some fellow standing in front of a store window or something like this. And he's looking at a store window that's full of sporting goods. And you ask him there, you say, "What about that store window?" Man, he's liable to give you something about Samoa, or the price of - the price of cranberries or something like that, hardly anything about this sporting goods. It'll be something offbeat, that's for sure. He's just a casual observer. He walks along and he looks at sporting goods. You, you chump, believe that he'd be standing there gazing through this glass thinking about how nice it would be to play a game of baseball. And that's not generally what's - what the casual person gazing on something like that is really thinking about. He seldom thinks about what he's looking at. He's thinking about some complexity. Some removed and departed complexity the like of which you couldn't trace with the full services of a UNIVAC and an ENIAC.

So a person has to be able to experience very freely before he starts remembering. Do you see this? This is a possibility.

You say, "Well, this fellow's standing there, he's looking at a window full of sporting goods. Now, obviously he's probably thinking..." This is the mistake writers make all the time. You believe people do this merely because writers think they do this, and you get this sequitur stream of consciousness in stories that you read. And the fellow's standing there looking at a window, he's naturally thinking about playing a game of ball with his little boy or something like that. Lord knows what he's thinking about.

All right. Now, what about all this? If you've educated yourself to have mass in order to remember, if you're trying to assist your knowingness by having other things know, you of course won't have anything to do with things that aren't written down or agreements that you have made and then that you don't know anymore. And these would be the first things to disappear. There's no mass connected with them. They're not located in time and space. There's nothing to remind you of them.

But confrontingness in this society at this time isn't good enough to permit a person to observe and think about what he is looking at. And his method of taking away the curse of confrontingness and fixing it up so that he doesn't have to confront it, is to put a number of vias, which is to say complexities, between himself and the object. The less he can confront the more complexities he's going to place between himself and the object.

They've just gone "Whhhhh." Ah, but they've just gone whhh, but what terrific effect!

So you get, with a person's stream of consciousness while he is (quote) observing something (unquote), a direct index to his ability to confront or experience. Which is, of course, a direct index to his state of reality. Just like that - it's just a direct index.You'll find somebody - it's a beautiful day, the birds are a-wing and all that sort of thing, and he's walking down a country roadway. And you wouldn't think there was a thing in the world there but a country roadway and a man walking down a country roadway, and the birds a-wing and all that sort of thing. That's what you'd swear was going on, because you look at him and that's what's happening. And you'd be amazed where he is and what he is thinking about and how little of that day and the birds a-wing he has any contact with. Now, that's a direct index of his reality

Now, people who run an engram through to the exteriorization end of the engram are always running into the exteriorization end of the engram with great relief. 'Now I am back here merely looking at the body lying there." Well, after they've run a few engrams, they find out that they went into some kind of an anesthesia. And if they're running all the perceptics out of the engram, there were perceptics there also of having felt pretty dreadful physically. But feeling pretty dreadful physically was upscale from the state they were in - well upscale.

- is the ability to confront.

Substitution has entered in, you see? They said, "The body hurts, the body's painful. Now I am out of the body, so I don't hurt." Oh, but the only thing in the body that hurt was themselves. See how that worked?

So what we mean by reality of course, is an ability to confront or an inability to confront. Unreality is an inability to confront and the substitution of - by vias.

I don't blame you for getting a little uncomfortable when you listen to this sort of thing. Just take a firm grip on your body and realize that you are somebody, and you do have one; you've won again.

Now, you never saw anybody quite so certain that life is complicated and so forth as somebody that's very stupid. They know life is terribly complicated. They know it's terribly, terribly complicated, because they can't understand any part of it. So obviously it must be terribly complicated. This isn't - this isn't a reasonable assumption at all.

What would be the first things that disappeared in a thetan? Well, for various mechanical reasons, he wouldn't like things without any mass whatsoever. And he wouldn't like himself being without any mass. And he certainly would hate to confront the first basic postulates that got him in that condition because obviously they're bad because look at the condition he's in. Proves it, doesn't it? Hmm?

Now, the complications of basic fundamentals do bring about forms and beingnesses and combinations and so forth. But after a while, when individuals can't confront circumstances they start going off sideways and they get all sorts of things. And you'll find somebody with a stable datum like this: "Jewelers never go anywhere."

So by not confronting the series of postulates which got him in that condition, he obviously winds up in that condition. If he never confronts them, of course he can never as-is them. I refer to your Axioms. You can't as-is something, if you only not- is something, you know - say it's not there, make it invisible or turn it black or substitute something else for it. If you never look at anything, it persists. The basic mechanism of persistence is said - never to observe it.

You say, "Now see here, son, what do you mean, jewelers never go anywhere? That's an awfully broad statement to make."

You have a country that's rattled and riddled with crime. Everybody says, "Ah, sweetness and light, so forth and so on." If you never look at the crime - if the citizens only look at newspapers about the crime and never look at the crime - you're just going to get more and more crime, and it's going to go on and on and on, it's going to persist further and further and further. Don't you see? Because it's never really looked at. Citizens hire some policemen and they say, "Well, the policemen will go around and look at the crime, and they'll as-is it all for us." And then everybody's amazed when it just doesn't all solve itself. Get the idea? It's not confronted.

"No, no it's - no, no. It's true."

Now, the least confronted thing on any track, then, would be something with no mass, something that had no location in time and space, something that did not confer any identity and something that was never observed in any way whatsoever. You've got the Axioms - those are the Axioms. It's fascinating that that's how you got in the condition you're in, you see? Never observed them, never knew them.

And you say, "Well, now look across the street. It's about five o'clock; in about three minutes you will see that jeweler leave his store and go home. Now, what do you mean he never goes anywhere?"

Merely assumed them, agreed to them - then found out that was bad so he didn't pay any more attention to it. Parked it over someplace over your non-existent left shoulder and you'd had it.

"Well, that's right. Jewelers never go anywhere."

For a while, you tried to cave somebody else in with an Axiom. See, you'd chant this Axiom at somebody, get into communication with him, and really hang it on him good and proper. Guilty of an overt act, you realize. So you better not be guilty of that overt act anymore and you better never even dramatize this thing, much less look at it. Let's just park it back over the left shoulder - the non-existent left shoulder - and have it gone totally.

The jeweler walks out of the door and goes home. You stand right there and watch him go home. Well, he's going somewhere, isn't he? He's going home. And you say to this fellow, "You see? You see?"

So these things, by one mechanical process or another, and basically by their - just the process of postulates and the various agreements which turn the whole thing up

And he says, "That's right, I see, all right. Jewelers never go anywhere."

- amount to the least observed and the most persistent data on the whole track.

After a while you get the notion that you're not talking to anything. There's something missing around here someplace. You see this?

The action of how the Axioms got swapped - pardon me, the way they got into agreement, so forth, is given in the Factors. The people swapping data around amongst themselves and so forth, and getting it mixed up and so on, and build a universe that way. The postulates that went along and that they least cared to confront were the postulates which gave them the most restimulation and that carried on along the line most rapidly were these Axioms.

The ability to observe is the ability to confront. Now, when you ask an individual to confront a postulate or an agreement, there's no mass connected with this thing. It's merely a principle. He's not looking at a thing. He's looking at pure knowingness, also on the via of ink and paper or the via of a spoken word. But when he looks at the thing there's really nothing there but pure knowingness, right?

Now, individuals - individuals getting together to make a universe might or might not follow this track. But certainly the individuals who did follow this track did make these postulates and agree upon them, pretty well. And these Axioms exist then on anyone's backtrack. But do you make your postulates in time and space or don't you?

And you try to teach some people these things and they get sick. They get sick. You ask them to conceive a static; to conceive a nothing. A static isn't a nothing, but you ask them to conceive something of no mass.

And of course time and space are postulates. And to make a postulate inside the postulate you've made is just complicating the issue most wonderfully. So these actually have no existence in time and space. So therefore they have wonderful persistence. You see how they'd persist? If they're not made in time and space, they of course persist.

Well, why should they get sick just trying to conceive something of no mass. If you don't believe this, look in Creation of Human Ability. There's one in there called "Conceiving a Static," which is a very fine process for any psychiatrist that you don't like.

Now, to turn around and start looking at these things and understanding these things, you're actually being made to look at the things which got you in the condition you're in. It'll restimulate quite often the sick feeling of losing a body, of being disappointed, of being apathetic; it'll restimulate forgettingness. These things are bits of knowingness, and so forth. And it restimulates not-knowingness, just bringing them up.

People, as they go down scale and get more and more associated and identified with mass and energy and so forth, are less and less capable of even the self-realization of their own beingness.

We look this over, we find that only Axioms 1 and 2 are. Those things are not made up or postulated - those are real, those are a fact. Those are not in any way agreed upon or invented, and nobody consulted you concerning them at any time. You didn't have to make up your mind to them, so on, because they're a fact. That is total reality. That is as near as Scientology comes to an absolute. Those are true! And the rest of them are simply postulates which were made, counter-made, agreed upon, then shunned, not ever looked at again, which stemmed out of postulates one and two.

Now, these data are the closest thing that you could get to a thetan in terms of significant thought. So you're looking right next door to a thetan when you're trying to study these things. Therefore a study of them shouldn't be interrupted. A study of them shouldn't be interrupted, simply because you get sick at your stomach and throw up a little bit, or feel terribly vague or something like that. Go ahead, have at it. But if you can't make it, get somebody to run some Havingness on you and then learn one. It's very interesting, you see? It's the absence of mass that makes them difficult to learn or understand.

So if you're looking for truth, look at Axioms 1 and 2; that's truth. It's as close to basic truth as we care to get. By truth we mean something unchangeable totally out of one's determinism, something you could do nothing about at all, it's invariable.

So the study of the Axioms could be a trial by fire to you, unless you understood exactly what they are. You are not studying a thing. You are trying to know something that you already know. You are victimized to the degree that you are forced to conceive something which has no mass and which has only thought.

It's true in all places at all times for all people, you know? Something is getting close to an absolute truth. Now, other things are merely relatively true. You're there, I'm here. Well, yes, yeah, that's - there's good certainty on that. Mostly because, however, we've agreed to a there and a here. And we've agreed that you're you and I'm me and - you see? We've got a lot of postulates and agreements and so forth, that we have identities, we have location, we've all agreed on the physical universe, we're busy holding up the space.

Therefore, many people take comforting refuge in the idea that all they have to do is memorize a stream of words and they got it! Tsk! Hah! Boy! Just - they memorize that stream of words.

Atlas packing the world on his back could be much better done by showing a thetan blindfolded in total anesthesia, packing the whole universe on his back and never noticing.

If they say, "Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses. Ya- tum-ta, dum-bum. Om mani padme hum! Grog-grog wog-wong. Hah! Made it! And if I carefully don't understand any part of it, I'll keep it made." Well, when they start to understand some part of it they get ill.

Yes, other things are relative truths, in other words. That they are relative truths does not mean, however, that they do not exist. Because who said existence proved truth? That too is an Axiom - that existence proves truth. But it's just agreed upon. How do you and I know it is true? Well, we can crow at each other and say, "Ha! You can look at it. Ha-ha. Obviously it's true because you can look at it. There it is. Oh."

To understand this thoroughly, you would actually have to put somebody on a research basis and run that old one of conceiving a static. Ask somebody to conceive a thetan, conceive a thetan, you know. Conceive a thetan. Conceive a thetan.

The dirtiest trick you could pull on him - anybody, though, is to look at it and say, "I don't believe in it."

Conceive a thetan. Conceive a thetan. He'd be pretty sick after a while - ordinary run of human events. In fact, he's sufficiently upset that most auditors will stop it before they flatten it. In view of the fact it would probably take anywheres from seventy- five to a couple of hundred hours of somebody being very, very ill and queasy and upset and shot to pieces before they made the grade and could really conceive a static. But it's a piece of heroics which are not particularly necessary, you see? It's not a vital process.

But he stacks it up and he puts some more mass on it and he shoves it up in front of you, puts it closer to your face and says, "But look! Look! Look!" you know?

But it certainly is a process which talks to you about knowinguess and pure knowingness. And it shows why people so avidly dive downhill into memorized lines, into symbols, into words, into mere parrotings and so on.

You say, "It doesn't prove a thing."

Well, if you want to teach somebody these Axioms, Logics and Prelogics, one of the ways to do it would be to take the old drill: you read the line to him and say, "What's that mean to you?" And he says whatever it is and you read the line to him and, "What's that mean to you?" And it'll finally mean to him exactly what you said. Then run him on about fifteen minutes of "Look around here and fmd something you can have" or "something you have." Run him about fifteen minutes on this and then work on another Axiom on this educational datum idea in the old PABs and drive another one home. Got the idea? He'd make the grade. He'd make the grade. You'd practically clear him in the process!

And he says, "But here it is, here it is. It's true then, isn't it? Here's the mass and so on. Don't you see it?"

Or just he brave and read them over and understand them and say, "Whee!" A lot of people do that, too.

You don't even have to be so stupid as to say, "See what?" you know? Just say, "Doesn't prove anything."

All right. Now, the Logics and Axioms are available in various forms. When they were originally written, I fully intended to expand each one into something that looked like a geometric proposition. Showed a proof, a demonstration, gave a research project for each one, how it could be demonstrated and so forth, since this seemed to be required. But I found out that if people didn't understand what they were reading when they read one of the Axioms, they weren't going to understand the explanation either. They were going to argue about the explanation. So to save you tremendous quantities of argument, I omitted the remainder of the project.

"Yeah, but," the guy says, "it's round," and "it's got mass and - and - and here it is and it's located right here in space, right in front of you and here it is and - and therefore it's true."

Now, running rapidly over some of these Prelogics, since these are never crushed home very hard, we find 1. Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses. It's certainly a common denominator. There's tremendous things to know about that thing. Immediately the meat shows up, you see, the second that you say this. Determination of self or determination of the actions of self and so forth.

And you say, "I don't see that makes it true."

Actually, there's a higher impulse and that's pan-determinism, others and self. But here we only want a common denominator of all life impulses. A common denominator would be self-determinism. We could say that's a common denominator because it goes all the way to the bottom. The one thing that survives all the way to the bottom is self-determimsm.

And if you were way up scale, way up scale, you actually, by your own postulate would have it as true or not true. And just like I was showing the people in the park could not-is things, well they - you could just simply look at this thing he's holding up in front of your face saying it's true and just as-is it - just as-is it for you. It'd disappear for you. And maybe if you were way, way up scale and terrifically competent in pan-determinism and so forth, it would just disappear out of his hands.

Other-determinisms or determinisms on other dynamics tend to fall away as you go all the way down. So this is a safe common denominator. It is not the highest common denominator. Because you can always work on this one, if you can get an individual's self-determinism picked up you'll pick up the individual.

And you would then say, "What were you saying was so true?"

Now, there's an old argument. There's an old, wonderful old argument, "We're all the same thetan." India, you run into this. Well, if everybody is all the same thetan, why are they all trying to individuate in India? What do we mean, to individuate? Be oneself and get away from the other fellow. Point out and insist on tremendous differences between self and the other fellow. What is all this insistence on tremendous differences between self and somebody else, and so forth? Being upset and annoyed simply because somebody misidentifies you.

The biggest lesson the physicist had - which he has now lost - but the biggest lesson he could teach was conservation of energy. And it was upon that assumption alone that the whole subject was built; conservation of energy. That is that energy was, it could not be created, it could not be dispelled, and so on. Then he went along and invented nuclear physics and upset his computations concerning the conservation of energy. Conservation of energy was no longer an absolute truth. Well, it was never a truth in the first place.

Comes in and says to you, 'Ah, Miss Smogenbraken. How are you today, Miss Smogenbraken?"

It just happens that the physical products or entities or commodities in this universe happen to be enduring. And they happen to obey certain laws. And I don't know that it's true that they - the nuclear physicist now knows that it isn't true that you take a mass and it's always that same mass and it's never altered and never destroyed and nothing ever happens to it. But the whole of elementary physics and the whole of basic physics was built on this stable datum - the conservation of energy. That was the assumption which built the science. You understand that? That's the assumption which built the science. From that, nearly everything else proceeds in the science of physics - conservation of energy.

And you say, "I'm sorry, the name is Smith."

Now, I don't know why they didn't talk about the conservation of space, but maybe they couldn't confront space. They talk about the conservation of matter, but maybe they couldn't confront matter. And I don't know why anybody - nobody's even mentioned conservation of time. I think Einstein did in some vast twenty-paged equation, one time or another - tends to get into, mathematically compute out toward the conservation of time in some fashion or another.

And they are very cute, and they say, "How do you spell it?" And you say, "S-m-i-t-h."

But if these two first things are true in Scientology, we'll see that the conservation or endurance of anything simply proceeds from the postulate, consideration or opinion of a life entity. If anything is to go on then something made it and that's what's happening.

Now, here's self-determinism. You'll find everybody will work one way or the other in the direction of individuation, being an individual or self-determination of one's acts, which is the doingness part of being an individual.

Now, this moves up ahead of nuclear physics. And a lot of nuclear physicists - I shouldn't make cracks at them, except I don't think their enthusiasm for destroying earth at this time is in good taste. I think it's a very questionable taste. I don't think that - I don't think that they should do that sort of a thing, you know? It's not that it's bad or good, but we've got a playing field and we're doing all right and just because they're not doing all right and are having marital troubles is no reason to blow up our front yard, you get the idea? I think they are invading our privacy, somewhat.

Now, the self-determination of one's own acts is where the auditor shines. He's at his best. And the pc makes the most gain when he runs the pc at cause. And look, out of this - out of this we have the definition of an Operating Thetan. That was the earliest write-down of an Operating Thetan. Didn't even recognize it at the time it was written down.

Now, if these things exist or persist, then persistence or the existence of things, spaces, energy, matter and so forth, proceed from something. Now, the search for that something has occupied all philosophers in all times. And they - the most of them donned the straitjacket and called for the little boys in white jackets and said, "Well, it's Yahweh," or "It's Molech," or "It's Baal," or "It's the being that lives in Yumpala heaven." See? And it's just - just total disassociation. That's total irresponsibility. And by taking this total irresponsibility they, of course, become the total effect of; not only the universe and others, but their own postulates. They denied totally their own postulates, or any share in any effect of these postulates at any time. Except being the effect of their own postulates.

That is to say, "A being at cause over life, form, matter, energy, space and time. Being at cause." Self-determinism, the determination of self - being at cause is a higher statement of the same thing.

And this is where we get the highest aberration is the denial of self. After this individual makes these postulates and considerations - consideration being a continuing postulate - after he makes these postulates then he says, "I had nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with me. It's way over thataway somewhere. And it was a god by the name of Molech that did it in the first place."

It's an odd thing that thetans go maddest on the things that are most natively themselves. This is a curious, curious thing but it's true. If you can find something that is totally right about a thetan, somewhere down along the line it's going to go totally wrong. It's apt to; doesn't always inevitably do so but it's apt to.

I don't know, I've asked some of these chaps at one time or another, I said, "Well, how did - how did Molech get you in a net? How'd he get you to agree to all this? How did he get you - how did you make his acquaintance? What accent does he talk with?"

So that every insanity is a mockery of sanity. Violent individuation, "Get away from me. I don't want to have anything to do with anybody." Paranoia, you know, scream, scream. "Got to hide, got to - everybody's after me..." and so on. Individuation, "Get away from me. I have to kill everybody I run into," you know? "Get away, get away..." this kind of an action, is actually, evidently, just the total bottom mockery, you might say or the almost bottom mockery of the fact that thetans are evidently quite different. Thetans are different. He is insisting on it. A thetan can't do anything but survive, so he insists on it. Got the idea?

There's a law against it. It's a crime called blasphemy. It's a criminal act in some areas to question the fact that something else you never met created the whole ruddy works. Now, that's how thick it's gotten! You see? That's a bit thick.

What's right with a thetan is that he survives. But after a while he begins to work at it. You get the idea? What's right with a thetan evidently, he is an individual, evidently. And after a while he begins to work like mad at it. Don't you see? It's one of the curious side phenomena. But of them all, individuation is always the button on which you can work the handiest.

Now, the action of cause and effect, Axiom 10, the action of cause and effect is again agreed upon mechanism stemming out of the creation of space and the laws and rules and mechanics of energy and masses behaving in space. All of which are simply made-up rules. But we look at them and we say, "But that's true, because you can see it!" Well, good for you, I'm glad you can. See? That doesn't make it true - absolutely true. It merely makes it extant. You see, it is!

We have number 2. Definition of self-determinism is the ability to locate in space and time, energy and matter; also the ability to create space and time in which to create and locate energy and matter. Well, that's a mechanical definition of self- determinism. It's merely a mechanical definition.

And you could say, "Well, everything that is, is true." Good. I can show you some good stories I've written, space opera. They're not true. They are. They're just fiction. Well, they are, and they're fiction. And right away you get into a philosophic conundrrun, you see? It is. It is a lie. Or it is an untruth.

Number 3. The identification of the source of that which places matter and energy and originates space and time is not necessary to the resolution of this problem at this time.

"Oh," you say, "yes but, if everything that is, is true, then why is it that something that is, is a lie?"

An individual doesn't have to believe in a thetan to believe in Scientology. You don't have to have seen a spirit in order to believe in a spirit. It isn't necessary to resolve the problem. And then I went ahead subsequently to this, and wrapped it up and resolved it.

And he says, "Oh, come off it now. What are you trying to do, confuse us?" "No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I was just looking at your confusion."

4.Theta creates space, energy and objects by postulates.

So where we enter the picture on the most basic stable datum, you might say the basic assumption of this subject, if you can call it an assumption, is Axiom 1: Life is basically a static.

Find some people say, "Well, I have to make a postulate," and then they create the space. The space is the postulate, is the only trick that I could give you here that seems a little odd. We are dealing in a postulate called space when you simply make space.

Now, we say "basically" just to Q&A with other people's incomprehensibility on the English language. Because they say "life" and they get the idea of kangaroos leaping and rabbits jumping, you know? It's a limitation of language, you see?

Universes are created by the application of self-determinism on eight dynamics.

Physicist comes along, and he says, "A static, a static, a static? Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no it couldn't be a static. Because static means not moving. Heh-heh."

1. Self-determinism, applied, will create, alter, conserve and possibly destroy universes.

And you say, "Good, show me a static."

1. The action cycle is one of the abilities of a thetan. An action cycle goes from

"Oh," he says, "this ashtray! There you are static." And you say, "Boy, when did you go blind, son?" "Well, what's the matter, what's the matter?"

40.0 to 0.0 on the Tone Scale. An action cycle is the creation, growth, conservation, decay and death or destruction of energy and matter in a space. Action cycles produce time.

You say, "Look. The earth's going around at a thousand miles an hour; that thing's moving at a thousand miles an hour this instant, around the axis of earth. And there are seven other separate motions that it is undertaking at this moment. And you're going to tell me that this thing is not moving."

Now, those are very ancient. They're very old, you see? They preceded - they preceded - those concepts -many other of these studies which came much later. And they certainly preceded the Axioms of Scientology.

"Oh, well," he says, "if you're going to talk it like that," he says, "that's no fair."

The Logics were much earlier also than the Axioms of Scientology. So the early activities here merely got together and defined certain working principles. And the message I would like to give you, if you find yourself very badly adrift and you can't quite see, you can't quite see your way through something, it looks awfully foggy about the Axioms - I'll give you an entrance point to the Axioms which are these Prelogics. They're rather simple. They're rather mechanical. They're not the highest of the high, you understand? They are rather mechanical. They are rather viewable. And although they're very old, turn back to them and look them over and see if they don't make sense. Or if somebody else is having a very, very hard time trying to understand the Axioms of Scientology, shove these Prelogics at him. You see, they are not as simple as it can get, you see? They're only half-way up to a high theoretical level.

A static is also described as something in an equilibrium of forces. Well, that's just - that's just another way of not saying anything. When we mean static, we mean something in a motionless state. We're taking that from physics - statics and kinetics. Well, if they're going to be kinetics, which are motions, certainly there's got to be another word which means none. Got it? And so we've just put some strain on this word static, and we've said, "It isn't moving."

An individual can argue about them and he can visualize them and he can look this over and he can quibble on the subject, and he can finally get his teeth into them. Whereas he might not be able to on some of the higher-level Axioms. Therefore, I recommend such a thing as the Prelogics as a prestudy, you might say, of the Axioms themselves. It's one way to get somewhere on the subjects. It's a place to get one's teeth into something.

Now, a static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has ability to postulate and perceive.

They are very far from perfect, you see? They're not nice little rounded-out, totally made gems of philosophy, you see. They're very far from perfect. They can be argued about. Individual can quibble with them.

That's a thetan. That's what we mean by a thetan; that's all. That's all we mean by a thetan.

Nevertheless, they have a sufficient recognizable truth in them to come home and he can look at it and maybe feel a little braver about tackling the next level. Because the next level in the Logics starts with pure knowledge, and talks about pure knowledge in the Logics. And more importantly, the level he is expected to tackle when he gets to the Axioms is that Creation of Human Ability process known as Conceive a Static.

That perhaps is a limited statement, it perhaps exceeds itself in too great a complexity. It's maybe much too complex a statement. It might be too simple a statement. It might be that, but my God, it's at least in English. And you would be absolutely amazed how hard it was to write the thing down - just to find language that transmitted it and communicated this fact. You never saw so many people dodging themselves in your life.

And we get back over to Axiom 1, Life is basically a static. And we ask him to conceive a static as his first mental exercise as he studies the Axioms. And I imagine that throws a great many people. So it's a good thing to go over here to something like the Prelogics, or to wander through the old Axioms of Dianetics or something of the sort, look them around, and kind of find your way around a little bit before you tackle the - not the raw meat, but the missing bones.

I mean, every time you tried to say, "static" they'd say, "duck."

In studying the Axioms you're of course studying the very ideas which got you into the horrible condition you eventually got into. And that's actually an overt act on my part. And if you hadn't helped think them up, why, I would feel very guilty about it. But I don't feel guilty in the least.

All right. What we mean is simply something that is not itself moving, is not itself mass, is not itself space, is not itself location, is not itself time. But it's capable of postulates. And part of its abilities to postulate consist of locating itself in any one of these things. Wonderful!

Thank you.

It's like an author writes a book and then locates himself as a subordinate character and goes on through the paragraphs. But it's true, that's what he's doing.

But to be able to describe this, simplify it and communicate it, is basically the triumph that is involved here. So don't get yourself all tangled up with saying, "The static, life, thetan - oh! I see what you're talking about, you're talking about the human soul."

No, no, no, no, no, I'm not talking about the human soul. I'm talking about a specific definition, a specific thing that has been described with considerable precision. See, it's nothing sloppy.

Now, if you said a ghost, you would be talking about a form or a development or a complexity of a life-being. Wouldn't you? A ghost thinks of himself as something that has to walk around without a body, or something which is around without a body and is doing something. Got the idea? Well, fine, that's fine. It's downscale from what we're talking about.

But here we have precision, a precise definition - we mean just that thing. Now that you can bang somebody out of his head, you can say to somebody - oh, even the worst cases, you can walk up to them and say, "Try not to be three feet back of your head." You know? They're liable to go wrrrrrr. A tremendous number of people will try not to be. Just the fact that he said, "Oh oh. Maybe I'm visible." He tries to stay inside, he's on a total inversion and he bangs himself out of his own head. He turns around and he goes flit and he comes back into it again.

You say, "Is life basically a static?"

"Boy, I don't know what I was, but I feel sick." You say, "What's the matter?"

"Well, I don't know. I was sitting there looking at the body." And then he says, "Wheeww." He just thought of something, he just got a brand-new idea, brand-new. "It was a delusion," he says. "Ha-ha. Yeah, how did you produce that hallucination with me a minute ago? How'd you do that?" He's trying to not-know the experience. It's upsetting to him.

So we look this over. This is the basic truth from which we proceed. Now, that doesn't even say that we are all individuals; let me point that out. And it doesn't say we are all one thetan either. People have the ability to merge and think they're everybody and people have the ability to individuate. When we finally bang somebody out of his head, look him over and have him stand on a small radio antenna and make the meter go bang and so forth, we have to decide that he's an individual; that he's not the product of mud or of space or of Yahweh. We have to decide he's himself

When you've run a few engrams out of somebody and you've realized the reality of it and you realize that he has been on the road for a long time, when you see somebody get well simply from recovering from having been bewitched in the 16th century or something like that, you have to decide that this is what you are looking at. And that is the most simple simple that we have; that is it.

Now, if you can find something more basic than that about life, go ahead. But that is the basic life thing. That is the basic life unit - that is it. There's a tremendous number of things you could know about it because it postulates itself into some of the weirdest things.

You sometimes run into some psycho and he's postulated himself into five different beingnesses and isn't any one of them. "Wow," you say. Oh, I'd say, "Man, that takes some doing." And I could prove to you conclusively that it did take some doing. I don't know how a person can stay sick or how he can stay crazy - it's the most imbalanced state imaginable. He just has to walk on tiptoe all the time. The reason people are sick or being careful all the time is they're liable to get well. It's very hard to maintain this imbalanced state.

Now, The static, in the second Axiom - the second Axiom is very clear, clean. Axiom 2: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

Now, more latterly, a consideration is defined as a continuing postulate. And an opinion, of course, is merely one has made up his mind on an observation. But you could have an opinion without an observation, as - listen to any political argument.

So there's his basic capabilities. Now we get into three - now we're talking about a specific thing he makes. He makes space, energy, objects, form, time, so on. He makes this, he makes that, he makes something else. Well, we're already away from the fundamental truth. Now we're going into what he does and how he does it because he might also be able to make a lot more things, because there might be other postulates. There might be something that is not unlike space called rorrf, and he might be able to make rorrf very easily. You got the idea?

So we haven't, then, a limited statement in Axiom 3, see? This is only part of the things he could do. This observably he could do. We can observe this because we are living in the matter - middle of a universe which is matter, energy, space and time. There might be a universe built out of rorrf and yeeek and thilll and on a mmmmm - and a thetan's quite capable of dreaming it all up.

But in Axioms 1 and 2 we are first the thing and then its basic capability. And we say postulate, individual says, "Mmm." Some space is created, he has made a postulate, only it is observable. It's in - it's space.

Now, those are the fundamentals that we deal with. This is the take-off point of the subject. This is the assumption on which the subject is built. If there are any more fundamental assumptions, why, wonderful. Someday we'll find them.

But the main point is that former studies in religion went on this assumption: "That God built it all and I'm just a little chip that drifted in from somewhere and I might be a bla-bla and who knows what I am. And I'm going to go to heaven and I'm going to go..." And they didn't - they didn't fare so well with this one, let me tell you; they didn't fare so well.

Another subject came along and overthrew that old religious area and that subject was known as natural science. And it was heresy in natural science to believe that a dot of mud all of a sudden leaped up full armed from the brain of some physicist and was alive. And it all evolved by accident and it all was complicated and it all was this. Well, they didn't make the grade either because they're about to blow up the world.

All right. Maybe we start from a little simpler, a little more basic thing and maybe this little more basic thing is a little harder to look at and a little harder to understand. And maybe the thoughts which proceed from that are so ghastly to confront that nobody will ever learn them. Nevertheless, we've been making good forward progress so far on the Axioms as they begin with 1 and 2 on this assumption on which we build this particular science. And we're making something with - with more affinity, more reality and more communication in it - the greater kindness and a greater potentiality, and let's hope we win.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

(applause)

I'm going to talk to you next on Tuesday - Tuesday afternoon at the usual time. And I'm very, very happy with the progress you're making. Now, I think you're doing extremely well.

Much, much less knuckle-headedness has shown up here than any class we've had anything to do with for a very long time. So you're just doing dandy, so keep it up.

Now, you're coming right on up through. You went past TR 8 today. That right? Audience:Yes.

And you had your last look at SCS, and tomorrow you get Connectedness, right? Audience:Mm-hm.

Well, Connectedness is the basic form of Havingness and it's the most elementary form of havingness. SCS is one of the more elementary forms of control. And you're really sailing along on basic processes and one word about these processes, they weren't chosen lightly. They are the most important processes in the deck. There are actually thousands of processes out of which these processes have been very carefully selected. But one didn't have to look very hard to select them. You know, they're our key processes.

And I want you to know these processes awfully well. I don't want you going out of this unit with a piece of paper in your hand processing somebody off of a command sheet, you understand? Just know what these things are. Just make up your mind you know what these processes are, know what their commands are. Don't fumble with them.

The mark of a professional, particularly in Scientology, is not only his presence, ability and confidence but also the fact when he starts auditing somebody on a command he never looks at the book. See, he knows it. This inspires a great deal of confidence.

So I'm asking you right here, you might say in mid-course, to make sure as these things fly by, that you nail them cold. Even though you have to walk down the street chanting to yourself of an evening, what the commands are to a certain process - you get those commands cold. That's the mark of a professional. Amongst Scientologists reading a command is always the mark of just "Well, he's just a ruddy amateur" you know, "nya-sneer."

Now, these things have been stable for a very long time, they are very well worth concentrating on. Don't think that there's a tremendous number of new processes going to come up and hit you in the teeth. Oh, there'll be new processes but isn't it funny that these processes are selected back from way back - way back. You're looking at years and years of processes; 1956 spring, SCS; Op Pro by Dup - Lord knows when that was - that was 1955, wasn't it? Something on...

Audience: Four.

. . . four, 1954-that's right! I remember the boys sweating and screaming. That was the first process that made good auditors in England that were really good. Really good. Run ten hours on some of these boys that were dropping the ball all the time and all of a sudden, boy, could they audit. They could duplicate - that was their main difficulty.

These CCHs are relatively new, but Havingness and its many forms are rather old. And to my recollection, ARC Straightwire - as itself and so forth, goes back about eight and a half years. These are old processes and I'm going to ask you to give them a lot of attention. Hit them real heavy. We're interested in your skill in the TRs but we're interested in your knowingness where these processes are concerned. Your ability to understand and administer them. We're giving them to you hot and heavy but they'll be using them for some time.

You'll graduate from this course, by the way, having had a greater coverage of Scientology than has been given in any course including ACCs for nine years. So if you feel a little bit swollen in the head, that's why.

See you next Tuesday. Good night.